FECR012634 - State's Response To Defendant's Motion To Disqualify County Attorney PDF

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRIAL INFORMATION
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE

DOB: 01-03-1967,
Defendant.
COUNT 1
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa, and in
the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of ONGOING CRIMINAL CONDUCT a
class B felony in violation of Iowa Code 706A.2(4), committed as follows: From on or
about September 11, 2012, through as recently as June 24, 2014, Defendant has
committed SPECIFIED UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY as defined in section 706A.1, in that
Defendant committed the below-listed predicate offenses and the other counts listed in this
Trial Information, and other acts described in the Minutes of Testimony, including
preparatory or completed offenses, for financial gain on a continuing basis, that are
punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of the state in which the crimes occurred
and under the laws of this state. IOWA CODE 706A.1 (2014) A person convicted of a class
B felony shall be confined for no more than twenty-five years. IOWA CODE 706A.2(4),
902.9 (2014)
A. PREVENTING
OR
DISSUADING
PERSON
FROM
TESTIFYING
OR
REPORTING CRIME Beginning on or around July 1, 2010, through February

2011, in the State of California, Defendant, on multiple occasions, attempted to
prevent or dissuade Dr. Scott Connelly, a person who had been the victim of a
crime or who was a witness to a crime, from causing a complaint, indictment,
information, probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and
assisting in the prosecution thereof, by publishing on the harassing, defamatory
stories about Dr. Scott Connelly on the internet. Also, in this same timeframe,
DARREN MEADE knowingly and maliciously attempted to prevent or dissuade
Dr. Scott Connelly, a witness and / or a victim from attending or giving testimony
at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law, by publishing harassing,

defamatory stories about Dr. Scott Connelly on the internet. Said crime is
punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of California [P.C.
136.1(b)(2), 136.1(a)(2)] and under the laws of the State of Iowa. [IOWA CODE
720.4 (2014)] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.
B. EMBEZZLEMENT - From July 2010 through June 2010, in State of California,
Defendant fraudulently appropriated to any use or purpose not in the due and
lawful execution of Defendants trust, $500,000 from Progenex Inc., which was
under his control by virtue of that trust, or secreted the same with a fraudulent
intent to appropriate it to that use or purpose. Said crime is punishable as an
indictable offense under the laws of California [P.C. 503, 504] and under the
laws of the State of Iowa. [Iowa Code 714.1 (2014). DARREN MEADE
committed this offense for financial gain.
C. UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND
COMPUTER DATA On or around February 15, 2011, in the State of California,
Defendant knowingly accessed (without permission) altered, damaged, deleted,
destroyed, or otherwise used data [contained on the servers for the website
www.ripoffreport.com, which is a computer, a computer system, or computer
network in order to either devise or execute his scheme to remove RipOff Report
complaints about himself, as well as others for money, or artifice to defraud,
deceive, deceive or extort, or wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or
data. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of
California [P.C. 502.1(c)(1)] and under the laws of the State of Iowa [IOWA CODE
716A.4 (2014)]. DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.
D. EXTORTION On or around May 2, 2014, in the State of California, Defendant,
in effort to obtain money, threatened to unlawfully injure Xcentric Ventures LLC
(dba www.ripoffreport.com) and threatened to disclose information about
Xcentric Ventures, which he obtained while working for Xcentric Ventures, that
would place their entire company and protections under the [Communications
and Decency Act] at risk. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense
under the laws of California [P.C. 518, 519] and under the laws of the State of
Iowa [IOWA CODE 711.4 (2014)] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for
financial gain.
E. EXTORTION On or around September 12, 2013, in the State of California,

DARREN MEADE threatened to unlawfully expose Daniel Danino to hatred
contempt, and ridicule, when he threatened to keep his RipOff Report complaints
about Daniel Danino and Daniel Daninos business, OC PC Computers, on
RipOff Reports website unless Daniel Danino gave DARREN MEADEs
computer, which Daniel Danino had performed work on, back to DARREN
MEADE. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of
California [P.C. 518, 519] and under the laws of the State of Iowa [IOWA CODE
711.4 (2014)] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.
F. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT Beginning on or around July 1, 2010,
through around February 25, 2011, in the State of California, after felonies had
been committed by a number of individuals employed, or purporting to be
employed, by Progenex Inc., DARREN MEADE harbored, concealed, or aided
said individuals, all principals to one felony or another, with the intent that said
individuals avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having
knowledge that said individuals had committed such felonies or had
been
charged with such felonies, or convicted thereof. Said crime is punishable as an

indictable offense under the laws of California [CAL. P.C. 32] and under the
laws of the State of Iowa [IOWA CODE 703.3] DARREN MEADE committed this
offense for financial gain.
G. ACCEPTING A BRIBE On or around August 15, 2014, DARREN MEADE,
who was or was about to be a witness in Small Justice LLC, v. Xcentric
Ventures, received, or offered to receive, a bribe, upon any understanding that
DARREN MEADEs testimony would be influenced thereby, or that DARREN
MEADE would absent himself from the trial or proceeding upon which his
testimony is required. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense under
the laws of California [CAL. P.C. 138] and under the laws of the State of Iowa
[IOWA CODE 722.2] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.
COUNT 2
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa,
and in the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of WITNESS TAMPERING, an aggravated
misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 720.4, 708.7, and 703.1, committed as
follows: Beginning on or around September 11, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Raymond Friedman, a
States witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900.
Specifically, with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Raymond Friedman,
without any legitimate reason, and in retaliation for witness Raymond Friedmans testimony
and lawful participation in the above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous
defamatory, harassing online complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Raymond
Friedman. Said complaints accuse witness Raymond Friedman of committing perjury,
fraud, and other criminal acts, and associate him with child molestation, child pornography,
and pipe bombs. One of these complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8
million webpages almost every day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially
engineered and optimized these complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence,
such that the complaints appear in benign, Google-type searches of and for Raymond
Friedman, his wife, Marie Friedman, and his business. Defendants acts produced
detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense. Defendant
committed this act for financial gain.
COUNT 3
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Marie Friedman, a States
witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900. Specifically,
with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Marie Friedman, without any legitimate
reason, and in retaliation for witness Marie Friedmans testimony and lawful participation in
the above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous defamatory, harassing online
complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Marie Friedman. Said complaints
accuse witness Marie Friedman of committing perjury and other criminal acts, and associate
her with child molestation, child pornography, and pipe bombs. One of these complaints
has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost every day for the last
two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and optimized these complaints to
enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the complaints appear in benign,
Google-type searches of and for Marie Friedman or her husband, Raymond Friedman.
Defendants acts produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an
indictable offense. Defendant committed this act for financial gain.
COUNT 4
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Mona Wehde, a States
with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Mona Wehde, without any legitimate
reason, and in retaliation for witness Mona Wehdes testimony and lawful participation in the
above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous defamatory, harassing online
complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Mona Wehde. Said complaints accuse
witness Mona Wehde of committing perjury and other criminal acts. One of these
complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost every
day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and optimized these
complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the complaints appear
in benign, Google-type searches of and for Mona Wehde and her business. Defendants
acts produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense.
Defendant committed this act for financial gain.
COUNT 5
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Michael Roberts, a States
with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Michael Roberts, without any legitimate
reason, and in retaliation for witness Michael Robertss testimony and lawful participation in
complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Michael Roberts. Said complaints
accuse witness Michael Roberts of committing perjury, fraud, child molestation, and other
criminal acts. One of these complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8
million webpages almost every day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially
engineered and optimized these complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence,
such that the complaints appear in benign, Google-type searches of and for Michael
Roberts, his wife, his children, and his business. Defendants acts produced detrimental
effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense. Defendant committed this
act for financial gain.
COUNT 6
follows: Beginning December 27, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with the intent to
produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Dr. Scott Connelly. Specifically, with the
intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm Dr. Scott Connelly, without any legitimate reason, and
in retaliation for Dr. Scott Connellys lawful participation in a criminal investigation and
expected testimony in a criminal case, DARREN MEADE published numerous defamatory,
harassing online complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Dr. Scott Connelly. Said
complaints accuse witness Dr. Scott Connelly of fraud. One of these complaints has
appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost every day for the last two
years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and optimized these complaints to enhance
their online visibility and presence, such that the complaints appear in benign, Google-type
searches of and for Dr. Scott Connelly. Defendants acts produced detrimental effects within
Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense. Defendant committed this act for financial
gain.
COUNT 7
follows: Beginning on or around December 27, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Sac County Sheriff, Ken
McClure, a States witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No.
FECR011900. Specifically, with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Sheriff, Ken
McClure, without any legitimate reason, and in retaliation for witness Sheriff, Ken McClures
testimony and lawful participation in the above case, DARREN MEADE published
numerous defamatory, harassing online complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning
Sheriff, Ken McClure. Said complaints accuse witness Sheriff, Ken McClure of corruption.
One of these complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages
almost every day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and
optimized these complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the
complaints appear in benign, Google-type searches of and for Sheriff, Ken McClure.
Defendants acts produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an
indictable offense. Defendant committed this act for financial gain.
COUNT 8
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Iowa DCI Special Agent (SA)
Trent Vileta, a States witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No.
FECR011900. Specifically, with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness SA Trent
Vileta, without any legitimate reason, and in retaliation for witness SA Trent Viletas
testimony and lawful participation in the above case, DARREN MEADE published
numerous defamatory, harassing online complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning
SA Trent Vileta. Said complaints accuse witness SA Trent Vileta of corruption. One of
these complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost
every day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and optimized
these complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the complaints
appear in benign, Google-type searches of and for SA Trent Vileta. Defendants acts
produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense.
Defendant committed this act for financial gain.
COUNT 9
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Dr. John Pitman, a States
with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Dr. John Pitman, without any legitimate
reason, and in retaliation for witness Dr. John Pitmans testimony and lawful participation in
complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Dr. John Pitman. Said complaints
accuse witness Dr. John Pitman of murder, having sexually transmitted diseases, doing
shabby surgery work on his patients, and engaging on other conduct that would expose
him to hatred, contempt, and / or ridicule. One of these complaints has appeared on each
of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost every day for the last two years. DARREN
MEADE specially engineered and optimized these complaints to enhance their online
visibility and presence, such that the complaints appear in benign, Google-type searches of
and for Dr. John Pitman, his family, and his business. Defendants acts produced
detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense. Defendant
committed this act for financial gain.
COUNT 10
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of OBSTRUCTING PROSECUTION, an
aggravated misdemeanor in violation of Iowa Code section 719.3, committed as follows:
beginning on or around April 13, 2012, through May 17, 2012, Defendant knowingly made
available false evidence or furnishes false information to law enforcement in Sac County,
Iowa, with the intent that the information be used in State v. Richter, Sac County District
Court, Case No. FECR011900, IOWA CODE 719.3 (2014) Obstructing Prosecution is an
indictable offense. Iowa Const. Art. 1 11; IOWA CODE 903.1(2) (2013); IOWA R. CRIM. P.
2.4(2) (2014) Defendant committed this crime for financial gain.
WITNESS LIST
KARIN E. GLAAB, Court Reporter

TERRIE C. BARKER, Court Reporter
TINA CHURCH, Private Investigator
DR. SCOTT CONNELLY, Witness
JUSTIN CROSSMAN, Employee, Xcentric Ventures
PAUL PORTELLI, Witness
MICHAEL ROBERTS, Witness
ADAM KUNZ, Employee, Xcentric Ventures
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Custodian of Records
ERNEST LUKE ADAMS, Progenex Employee
RYAN STEVEN PAGE, Progenex Employee
STEVE SHAMION, Progenex Employee
AARON THOMAS, Progenex Employee
JP MORGAN CHASE, Custodian of Records
WELLS FARGO BANK, Custodian of Records
BANK OF AMERICA, Custodian of Records
DR. JOHN PITMAN, Witness
RAYMOND FRIEDMAN, Witness
MONA WEHDE, Witness
KEN MCCLURE, SHERIFF, Sac County, Iowa
TERRY KLOOSTER, (former) Special Agent in Charge, Division of Criminal Investigation
CRAIG MACKAMAN, Special Agent, Division of Criminal Investigation
CLERK OF COURT, Sac County, Iowa
AMERICA ONLINE (AOL), Custodian of Records
GOOGLE, Custodian of Records

PRAIRIE INET, Custodian of Records
SHAWN RICHARDSON, Computer Technician
COX COMMUNICATIONS, Custodian of Records
METRO PCS, Custodian of Records
SPRINT, Custodian of Records
VERIZON WIRELESS, Custodian of Records
JULIA BOWMAN, Detective, Laguna Beach Police Department
WILLIAM BONDURANT, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation
DANIEL DANINO, Computer Technician / Witness
FACEBOOK, Custodian of Records
SIAMACK YAGHOBI, Occupation Unknown
State of Iowa Courts

Type:
Approval of Trial Information
Case Number
FECR012634
Case Title
STATE VS DARREN MITCHELL MEADE
On this date, I have reviewed the attached Trial Information and the accompanying Minutes
of Testimony and find that they contain evidence which, if unexplained, is sufficient to
warrant a conviction by a trial jury. Being satisfied from the showing made that the case
should be prosecuted, I approve the Trial Information.
Release conditions are set by separate Order of the Court.
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2014-09-02 11:36:13
page 12 of 12

STATE OF IOWA,
ORDER SETTING ARRAIGNMENT
Plaintiff,
AND BOND
v.
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE,
Defendant.
The TRIAL INFORMATION and the MINUTES OF EVIDENCE in this matter

have been examined and found to contain sufficient evidence, if unexplained, to warrant
a conviction in a trial by jury, therefore, this matter shall be set for Arraignment.
IT IS ORDERED, the Defendant shall personally appear for Arraignment at the
Sac County Courthouse, District Courtroom, Sac City, Iowa on the 22nd day of
September 2014 at 9:00 a.m..
The Defendant is advised that failure to appear will result in the issuance of an
arrest warrant.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the Defendants bond and conditions for release
from custody in this matter shall be:
Defendant is released on personal recognizance.
Bond is set in the amount of $________________.
Bond may be unsecured.
Bond must be cash or secured in the amount of the Bond.
10% cash may be posted.
Bond previously set shall continue.
Clerk of Court shall issue a summons for Defendant to Appear.
Clerk of Court shall issue an nationwide arrest warrant.
Other Conditions of Release:
Defendant shall obey all Federal, State, and Local laws.
The Defendant shall have no contact with the victim or any witness set
forth in the minutes of evidence in this matter.
The Defendant shall be on pre-trial supervision to the Second Judicial
District Department of Correctional Services.
Other:
[ ] Defendant is Ordered to immediately obtain a Substance Abuse
Evaluation and provide it to the Court. Failure to do so may result in the
revocation of Defendants Pre Trial Release.

Type:
ORDER FOR ARRAIGNMENT
Case Number
FECR012634
Case Title
So Ordered
page 2 of 2
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: FECR012634
APPEARANCE
COMES NOW the undersigned attorney, A. Zane Blessum, and hereby enters his
Appearance on behalf of Defendant, DARREN MITCHELL MEADE, in the above
captioned matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ A. Zane Blessum

____________________________
A. Zane Blessum (AT0000899)
2501 Westown Parkway, Suite 1202
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Telephone: 515-221-1666
Facsimile: 515-225-6999
azb@blessumlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
Original E-Filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney

STATE OF IOWA,
CASE No. FECR012634
Plaintiff,
v.
MOTION TO QUASH
ARREST WARRANT
Defendant.
COMES NOW the State of Iowa and for its Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant
states an attorney has filed an appearance and a written arraignment in this
matter.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the State respectfully requests that
the arrest warrant be quashed.
__________________________
Benjamin John Smith
Sac County Attorney
Sac County Courthouse
100 NW State St., Suite 9
Sac City IA 50583
Telephone: 712-662-4791
Email: attorney@saccounty.org

STATE OF IOWA,
CASE No. FECR012634
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER QUASHING
ARREST WARRANT
Defendant.
This matter came before the Court on the States motion to quash the warrant
for Defendants arrest. The Court, upon the record and being advised in the
premises, FINDS and ORDERS that for the reasons set forth in the States
related motion, the arrest warrant issued herein shall be and is quashed.

Type:
OTHER ORDER
Case Number
FECR012634
Case Title
So Ordered
page 2 of 2
2RCR02

STATE OF IOWA,
PLAINTIFF,
Case No. 02811 FECR012634
vs.
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE ,
ORDER FOR TRIAL
DEFENDANT.
1. Defendant filed a Written Arraignment and Plea of Not Guilty to all charges on
September 19, 2014.
2. The Defendant's name as charged in the Trial Information is true and correct.
3. Defendant waives the right to speedy trial.
4. Defendant is represented by A. Zane Blessum.
IT IS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the jury trial of this case
shall commence on November 4, 2014, at 9 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Pretrial Conference is scheduled on 10/20/2014
at 9:00 AM at the Sac Co. Courthouse, 100 NW State St., Sac City, Iowa.
If the Defendant chooses to take depositions of minuted State's witnesses,
depositions are ordered pursuant to I.R.Cr.P.2.13(1). If the Defendant takes depositions
of State witnesses, the Defendant shall comply with I.R.Cr.P.2.13(3) and the State may
depose Defendant's witnesses. If Defendant's counsel is appointed, the depositions
shall be at public expense. Upon Defendant's request, the State is ordered to disclose
evidence pursuant to I.R.Cr.P. 2.14(2). If the Defendant requests discretionary
discovery, the State is ordered to comply with the provisions of I.R.Cr.P. 2.14(b). If the
Defendant opts to request discretionary discovery and the State requests reciprocal
discovery, the Defendant shall comply with the disclosure required by I.R.Cr.P.2.14(3).
Either party may object to the order for discretionary discovery and have the matter set
for hearing. The State shall disclose any exculpatory evidence, including any evidence
relating to the credibility of minuted witnesses.
1 of 3
CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO:

SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY
ANTHONY ZANE BLESSUM
DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR
2 of 3

Case Number
FECR012634
Type:
Case Title
ORDER SETTING TRIAL
So Ordered
3 of 3
E-FILED 2014 SEP 25 3:32 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: FECR012634
NOTICE OF COUNSEL
WITHDRAW
COMES NOW the undersigned attorney, A. Zane Blessum, and hereby enters his
Withdraw of Counsel on behalf of Defendant, DARREN MITCHELL MEADE, in the
above captioned matter. The Defendant, DARREN MITCHELL MEADE has obtained
and new counsel.
/s/ A. Zane Blessum

____________________________
A. Zane Blessum (AT0000899)
2501 Westown Parkway, Suite 1202
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Telephone: 515-221-1666
Facsimile: 515-225-6999
azb@blessumlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
Original E-Filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
Glen S. Downey Attorney for Defendant
2RCR01
STATE OF IOWA,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
ORDER
DEFENDANT.
The Notice of Counsel Withdraw comes before the Court. Defendant has obtained new
counsel.
IT IS ORDERED that attorney A. Zane Blessum is relieved of any further duties in this
file.

SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY
ANTHONY ZANE BLESSUM
GLEN DOWNEY
Court Administration
1 of 2

Case Number
FECR012634
Type:
Case Title
OTHER ORDER
So Ordered
2 of 2

STATE OF IOWA
v.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: FECR012634

MOTION FOR BILL OF
PARTICULARS
COMES NOW Darren Mitchell Meade, by and through undersigned counsel, Glen S.
Downey, and hereby moves this Honorable Court for an order requiring the county attorney to
furnish a Bill of Particulars setting forth the specific nature of the offenses charged in the Trial
Information and Minutes of Testimony. As presently constituted, the States charges fail to
adequately identify the specific acts upon which his charges are based. As grounds for this
Motion, it is stated:
1.
The September 2, 2014 Trial Information lodged against Meade contains ten
counts of general conduct which do not provide Meade under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure
2.11(6) with the necessary information to prepare an adequate defense.
2.
In order for counsel to provide effective representation to Meade, and in order for
Meade to adequately prepare a defense by making clear the nature and boundary of the charges
against him, and in order to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial, the following information is
required:
a. The dates on which Meade allegedly attempted to prevent or dissuade Dr. Scott
Connelly from causing a complaint, indictment, information or parole violation to be prosecuted;
b. The locations in which such attempts were made on Dr. Connelly;
c. The alleged defamatory or harassing statements Meade made about or to Dr.
Connelly in order to prevent or dissuade him from complaining;
d. The dates on which Meade allegedly prevented or dissuaded Dr. Connelly from
giving testimony at a trial or proceeding by publishing harassing or defamatory statements;
e. The locations of such attempts;
f. The alleged harassing or defamatory statements that were intended to prevent or
dissuade Dr. Connelly from testifying;
g. The exact Ripoff Report complaints that Meade allegedly removed about himself
and others without authorization on or about February 15, 2011;
h. The location at which Meade allegedly committed such unauthorized access in
(g);
i. The information on or about May 2, 2014 that Meade allegedly threatened to
disclose about Xcentric Ventures that would put the company at risk;
j. The exact Ripoff Report complaints about Daniel Danio that on or about
September 13, 2013, Meade allegedly threatened to keep up that would unlawfully expose
Danio to hatred, contempt and ridicule;
k. The alleged actions that Meade took from July 1, 2010 through February 15, 2011
that harbored or concealed or aided the principals to one felony or another with the intent that
they avoid detection, prosecution or trial;
l. The alleged felonies and perpetrators of such felonies that Meade was purportedly
attempted to harbor or conceal;
m. The locations that such alleged felonies took place;
n. The amount of the bribe that Meade allegedly took on or about August 15, 2014
to influence his testimony in Small Justice, LLC v. Xcentric Ventures;
o. The person whom allegedly bribed Meade;
[2]
p. The location at which Meade allegedly accepted said bribe;

q. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Raymond Friedman in a purported attempted to retaliate against Friedman for his
testimony in State v. Richter;
r.
The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly
published about Marie Friedman in a purported attempted to retaliate against Ms. Friedman for
her testimony in State v. Richter;
s. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Mona Wehde in a purported attempted to retaliate against Wehde for her testimony in
State v. Richter;
t. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Michael Roberts in a purported attempted to retaliate against Roberts for his testimony in
State v. Richter;
u. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Dr. Scott Connelly in a purported attempted to retaliate against Connelly for his lawful
participation in a California criminal investigation;
v. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Sac County Sherriff Ken McClure in a purported attempted to retaliate against McClure
for his testimony in State v. Richter;
w. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Iowa DCI Special Agent Trent Vileta in a purported attempted to retaliate against Vileta
for his testimony in State v. Richter;
[3]
x. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Dr. John Pitman in a purported attempted to retaliate against Pitman for his testimony in
State v. Richter; and
y. The exact statements and false information Meade allegedly provided to law
enforcement in Sac County, Iowa between April 13, 2012 and May 17, 2012.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.11(6) provides for a bill of particulars as follows:
When an indictment or information charges an offense in accordance with this
rule, but fails to specify the particulars of the offense sufficiently to fairly enable
the defendant to prepare a defense, the court may, on written motion of the
defendant, require the prosecuting attorney to furnish the defendant with a bill of
particulars containing such particulars as may be necessary for the preparation of
the defense. A motion for a bill of particulars may be made any time prior to or
within ten days after arraignment unless the time be extended by the court for
good cause shown.
This rule codifies the due process protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment that require the
accused be advised of the crime charged with sufficient certainty to enable him to prepare his
defense. See Cole v. Arkansas, 222 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29,
40 (1896). Indeed, the purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of
the charges against him and to prevent or minimize the element of surprise at trial. United States
v. Garrett, 797 F.2d 656, 665 (8th Cir. 1986). A Defendants motion to for a bill of particulars
should be granted when the Trial Information and Minutes of Testimony fail to apprise him of
the particulars of the offense sufficiently to fairly enable him to prepare his defense. State v.
Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa).
[4]
ARGUMENT
Witness Tampering:
Eight of the ten counts of the Trial Information against Meade charge him with Witness
Tampering in violation of Iowa Code section 720.4. Section 720.4 provides three methods of
committing this offense: (1) offering a bribe, (2) making threats or forcibly or fraudulently
detaining or restraining, or (3) harassing in retaliation. State v. LaPointe, 418 N.W.2d 49, 51
(Iowa 1988).
The first two methods are not at issue as County Attorney Smith only alleges that Meade
published defamatory statements about witnesses in retaliation for their lawful participation and
testimony in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No, FECR011900. To establish
this method of witness tampering, Smith will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Meade (1) "in retaliation for anything lawfully done" by a "witness" in a "case," (2) "harassed
such witness." Iowa Code section 720.4; LaPointe, 418 N.W.2d at 52.
Apparently Smiths theory is that Meades investigative journalism was conducted and
published with the intent to harass the states witnesses in the Richter case. Apart from the
obvious problem that such journalism is protected by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution (which shall be asserted separately, along with other issues, in a distinct Motion to
Dismiss), Smith makes only conclusory assertions about which complaints or statements he
alleges were intended to harass the witness. Without specific reference to the exact complaints
or statements Smith is alleging Meade published to harass the witnesses, Meade has no ability to
prepare a defense to such charges.
Although Smith attached well over a thousand pages of exhibits to the Minutes of
[5]
Testimony in this action, Smiths avalanche of almost entirely superfluous paperwork (that has
almost nothing to do with Darren Meade and even less to do with anything that Darren Meade
may or may not have done in Iowa) does not reveal the exact defamatory complaints or
statements that Meade allegedly published to harass the witnesses. At a bare minimum, Smith
and the State have an obligation to provide due process to Meade and inform him of the exact
statements that they intend to show were meant to harass the States witnesses. Cole v. Arkansas,
333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) (holding that the due process guarantees of the fourteenth amendment
requires the accused to be advised of the specific charge against him).
Count I On-going Criminal Conduct:
With respect to Count I of the Trial Information, County Attorney Smith is charging
Meade with alleged on-going criminal conduct including, preventing or dissuading a person from
testifying or reporting a crime, extortion, embezzlement, unauthorized access to computers,
accessory after the fact and accepting a bribe.
Accepting Smiths allegations as true, all of the alleged crimes occurred solely in
California and Smith makes no assertions in either the Trial Information or the Minutes of
Testimony how such conduct relates to Iowa or crimes that allegedly occurred in Iowa. Without
more specificity as to the information or theory Smith believes allows to charge a California
citizen in Iowa with crimes that occurred in California, Meade cannot adequately prepare a
defense to such charges and his due process rights will have been violated. Cole v. Arkansas,
333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) (holding that the due process guarantees of the fourteenth amendment
requires the accused to be advised of the specific charge against him).
WHEREFORE, Defendant Meade moves the court to compel the State to plead the
witness tampering, on-going criminal conduct and obstructing prosecution with sufficient
[6]
particularity as to allow Meade to mount a constitutionally adequate defense.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GLEN S. DOWNEY, LLC
/s Glen S. Downey__________________
By: Glen S. Downey AT0012428
301 East Walnut Street, Suite 4
Des Moines, IA 50309
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT MEADE
Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true
copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon
each of the attorneys of record, or the parties
if unrepresented, at their respective addresses
disclosed on the pleadings.
By:
_____ U.S. Mail

_____ Courthouse Mail
_____Certified Mail
_____ Fax
_____ Hand delivered
_____ Other
Signature:_______________________________________
Date:____________________________________________
[7]
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF IOWA
v.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: FECR012634

MOTION TO DISMISS1
Downey, and moves to dismiss Counts 1 through 10 of the Trial Information under Iowa R. Crim
Proc. 2.11(6)(a). In support of this motion, Defendant states the following:
1. The criminal charges against Darren Meade were filed without an assertion of probable
cause and without the specificity required to provide Meade with the due process necessary to
adequately defend himself.
2. Counsel has filed a separate Motion for Bill of Particulars asking that Court order the
state to supplement the Trial Information and Minutes of Testimony. Those documents, while
voluminous, are devoid of specific criminal conduct which would allow the State to charge
Meade with one count of Ongoing Criminal Conduct (Iowa Code 706.2(4)), eight counts of
Witness Tampering (Iowa Code 720.4; 708.7 & 703.1) and one count of Obstructing
Prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3).
3. This case is profoundly and substantially flawed and reeks of retaliation by the County
Attorney for Meade engaging in constitutionally protected speech that was critical of County
Attorney Smith and his performance as a prosecutor.
Undersigned counsel wants to alert this Honorable Court in addition to filing this Motion to
Dismiss; counsel will be filing a Motion to Disqualify County Attorney Ben Smith, a Motion to
Suppress and a Motion to Change Venue. Counsel will be out of the country from October 3,
2014 through October 8, 2014 and will file these Motions shortly after returning.
4. Furthermore, much of the criminal conduct the Trial Information alleges occurred was
conduct that obviously took place in California and is therefore beyond the territorial jurisdiction
of Iowa and County Attorney Smith, a fact so obvious that it only adds to the supposition that
County Attorney Smith is using his prosecutorial powers not to punish crime but to silence his
critics.
5. Never before has a journalist been charged in Iowa (or elsewhere) for merely reporting
about his belief that a criminal prosecution resulted in the incarceration of an innocent woman.
6. Not only does the attempted prosecution of Meade punish him for engaging in his
constitutional right to criticize public officials and report on controversies and accusations, this
prosecution chills the rights of all journalists to report on matters of public concern, especially
when those matters are critical of someone with the power to criminally prosecute them if they
disagree with that reporting.
7. Mere disagreement with and mere inaccuracies in the reporting are not sufficient to
support a criminal conviction, let alone enough to support to initiation of a criminal prosecution.
Criminal charges are never appropriate if used to silence critical speech.
8. Bringing criminal charges against Meade impinges on one of the cornerstones of our
democracy the need for a robust and wide-open public debate and as such, justice demands
the charges against Meade be dismissed in their entirety.
9. The bases for this Motion to Dismiss are more fully discussed in the brief filed in
support.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Darren Mitchell Meade, respectfully requests the Court
dismiss the states charges as a matter of law.
/s Glen S. Downey__________________
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
PROOF OF SERVICE
By:
_____ U.S. Mail

_____Certified Mail
_____ Fax
_____ Other
Signature:_______________________________________
Date:____________________________________________

STATE OF IOWA
v.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: FECR012634

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS
BACKGROUND
The State of Iowa has brought a ten-count trial information charging one count of
Ongoing Criminal Conduct (Iowa Code 706.2(4)), eight counts of Witness Tampering (Iowa
Code 720.4; 708.7 & 703.1) and one count of Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3).
These charges against Meade must be dismissed as a matter of law for several reasons.
First, even if all of the States rather preposterous evidence and theories are taken at face
value, all of Meades conduct would have occurred in California and not within Iowa and
therefore, the State of Iowa has no territorial jurisdiction to pursue such charges against Meade.
Second, Meades conduct in writing and posting stories relating to the Tracy Richter murder
prosecution and his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by Sac County Attorney Ben Smith
does not fall within the ambit of prohibited conduct under section 720.4 related to witness
tampering. Third, the witness tampering and obstructing prosecution charges attempt to
criminalize conduct that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
County Attorney Ben Smith can disagree with Meades assessment of his performance of as a
prosecutor and investigator and can disagree with Meades opinion that not all of the States
witnesses in the Richter case were truthful on the stand, but the First Amendment clearly protects
such criticisms, indeed, the First Amendment places such criticisms on the highest rung of
protected speech and therefore any attempt to criminalize such criticisms runs afoul of First
Amendment jurisprudence. And finally, the criminal charges brought against Meade reek of
prosecutorial vindictiveness for Meades engagement is this constitutionally protected right to
criticize government officials namely County Attorney Smith and the officers who investigated
the Richter case and to report on the theories and accusations surrounding that murder case.
ARGUMENT
I.
THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO

CONFER TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ON IOWA BECAUSE EVEN TAKEN
THE STATES EVIDENCE AT FACE VALUE, ALL OF THE ALLEGED ACTS
BY MEADE OCCURRED WHOLLY IN CALIFORNIA.
As an initial matter, Meade moves to dismiss all of the counts against him because even
accepting the wild facts alleged in Smiths minutes of evidence as true, all of the conduct alleged
to have been committed by Meade occurred within the state of California and therefore the state
of Iowa does not have territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Meade for these alleged offenses.
Territorial jurisdiction to prosecute a criminal offense generally rests in the courts of the
state where the offense was committed. State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181, 184 (Iowa 1994). It is
an essential element of every crime, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution requires the State to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at
184-85. Iowas criminal jurisdiction statute is found in Iowa Code section 803.1. This section
provides, in pertinent part:
1. A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which the person commits
within or outside this state, by the person's own conduct or that of another for which the
person is legally accountable, if:
a. The offense is committed either wholly or partly within this state.
b. Conduct of the person outside the state constitutes an attempt to commit an
offense within this state.
c. Conduct of the person outside the state constitutes a conspiracy to commit an
d. The offense is based upon a statute that specifically prohibits conduct wholly
outside of the state, and the conduct bears a reasonable relation to a legitimate
[2]
state interest, and the person knows or should know that the conduct is likely to
affect that interest.
e. Conduct of the person within this state constitutes an attempt, solicitation or
conspiracy to commit an offense in another jurisdiction, which conduct is
punishable under the laws of both this state and such other jurisdiction.
Nothing in the Trial Information or Minutes of Testimony alleges that Meade ever set
foot in Iowa. Meade is and has been a resident of California during all of the times frames
outlined in the States Trial Information and has never traveled to Iowa during any of the times
the State alleges he committed the alleged crimes detailed by the State. This fact is not in
dispute.
Count 1 (A-G) of the Trial Information related to on-going criminal conduct (Iowa Code
section 706A.2(4)) specifically states for every alleged crime that in the State of California,
Defendant. Each sub-part then lists an alleged crime including extortion, embezzlement,
accepting a bribe, etc. There are zero allegations that any of these alleged crimes occurred in
Iowa, had any connection to people residing in or doing business in Iowa and absolutely no
allegations that any of the on-going criminal conduct outlined in Count 1 was part of a
conspiracy to commit any offense in the state of Iowa. In fact, all of the allegations in Count 1 of
the Trial Information related to a business dispute in California which was litigated in the
California courts between various nutrition companies and its various officers and agents. That
litigation resulted in a binding settlement agreement between the parties that was signed in
California in 2011. Again, all of this alleged conduct took place in California, involving
California parties or residents who had zero connection to Iowa. Therefore, none of the statutory
requirements outlined in Iowa Code Section 803.1 have been met conferring territorial
jurisdiction on the State of Iowa for prosecution of such crimes as alleged against Meade.
[3]
Similarly, the counts related to witness tampering and obstructing prosecution involve
conduct that occurred in California. County Attorney Smith makes no allegations that Meade
ever spoke with or communicated with any of the witnesses in the Richter murder case that
Meade was allegedly harassing in retaliation for their testimony. At most, Smith alleges that
Meade published articles that he claims defamed the witnesses and that he published these
articles in retaliation for these witnesses testimony on behalf of the State. Laying aside whether
Smith can criminally charge for defamatory statements or whether the statements can even be
considered defamatory (both of which are taken up later), Smith does not allege that Meade ever
did any of the harassment in Iowa or that he even attempted to make sure the Iowa witnesses
were aware of his publications. Since there in no tangible connection to Iowa in Meades
publications, Iowa and County Attorney Smith lack the requisite territorial jurisdiction to
prosecute Meade for these publications.
II.
THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT ALLEGE FACTS THAT ARE

LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE MEADE WITH THE CRIMES
OUTLINED IN THE TRIAL INFORMATIONAND MINUTESOF
TESTIMONY.
The witnesses tampering and obstructing prosecution charges against Meade are not
legally sufficient and therefore must be dismissed.

As stated above, County Attorney Smith does not allege that Meade attempted to make
sure the witnesses in question ever read or even knew about his publications or that he had the
intent to intimidate, annoy or alarm the witnesses and that he did so without a legitimate purpose.
See State v. Fratzke, 446 N.W. 781, 783 (Iowa 1989) (To prove harassment in retaliation for
something lawfully done, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant (1)
intended to intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person (2) by a communication in writing or by
[4]
telephone (3) without legitimate purpose and (4) in a manner likely to cause the other person
annoyance or alarm).
Meades publications and articles while critical of County Attorney Smith and critical of
the veracity and backgrounds of some of the States witnesses, were all publications designed to
expose or right what Meade saw as an injustice. His purpose was to provide information and
documents to support what he believed was an unjust prosecution and as such, even if Amith
could make out some allegations that Meade had the intent to harass the witnesses in question,
Meade clearly had a legitimate purpose in publishing the articles and therefore there is no legally
sufficiency for the charges against him. Fratzke, 446 N.W. at 785 (holding that an individuals
vitriolic and obscenity-filled letter to a state trooper criticizing his handling of a traffic stop could
not be considering harassment because to hold that writing such a letter had no legitimate
purpose would be the equivalent to finding that the First Amendments promises are not worth
the paper they are written on).1
III. THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE ALLEGE CONDUCT THAT IS CLEARLY
PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND CANNOT BE
CRIMINALIZED MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE STATEMENTS
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY MEADE MAY TURN OUT TO BE
UNTRUE AT A LATER DATE.
Meade has the constitutional right under the First Amendment to publish stories critical of
County Attorney Smiths handling of the Tracey Richter murder prosecution and Smiths use of
Because Count 10 of the Trial Information related to obstructing prosecution (Iowa Code
719.3) is without any factual basis to allow Meade to determine what false information he
allegedly provided to law enforcement officials and on what purported dates he allegedly
provided such information, it is impossible to Meade to cogently argue whether such information
is legally sufficient to charge him. As stated in Meades separate Motion for Bill of Particulars,
this lack of factual specificity violates Meades due process rights. See Cole v. Arkansas, 222
U.S. 196, 201 (1948); Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 40 (1896). As written and charged,
the obstructing prosecution lacks legally sufficiency because the charging documents do not note
what false information was provided to law enforcement officials that obstructed a prosecution.
[5]
witnesses with questionable backgrounds and motives. County Attorney Smiths attempted use
of Iowas Witness Tampering statute (Iowa Code 720.4) and Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa
Code 719.3) against Meade is nothing less than an attempt to silence a critical engaged in
constitutionally protected speech.
As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has NO power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content. Ashcroft v.
America Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002) (emphasis added). Any attempt by
Smith to claim that he is only punishing Meade and his publications because they were false and
therefore harassing of the states witnesses in the State v. Richter, Sac County District Court,
Case No. FECR011900 case is an argument that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. The
U.S. Supreme Court has rejected such arguments saying [t]he First Amendments guarantee of
free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of
relative social costs and benefits. United States v. Stevens, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1585 (2010). Even
knowingly false statements do not lay outside First Amendment protection because the very
purpose of the First Amendment was to ensure that each person could be his own watchman
for truth, because the forefathers did not trust government to separate the true from the false for
us. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945); see also Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 419
(1988) (The First Amendment is a value-free provision whose protection is not dependent on
the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered. (citations
omitted) (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445 (1963)); N.Y. Times Co., 376 U.S. at 271
(Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to
recognize and exception for any test of truth.).
[6]
In fact, when confronted with the issue directly a few years ago, the Supreme Court
decided that false statements were indeed protected by the First Amendment and were not
subject to prosecution merely because they were knowingly false when uttered or published. See
United States v. Alvarez, 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012). Indeed, as the Court made clear in Alvarez, the
constitutionally permissible response by the government or others to false speech is speech that
is true and not statutory or criminal prohibitions on such speech. Id. at 2550.
To the extent that County Attorney Smith will argue that Meades articles and published
statements about the states witnesses are being criminally punished because they are
defamatory, County Attorney Smith fails to take into account decades of jurisprudence
surrounding the neutral reporting privilege and its constitutional protection of publishers and
writers who are critical of public officials, including those persons, in this case witnesses, who
are involved in an event of public or general interest. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323
(1974); N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403
U.S. 29 (1971). Reporters such as Meade must have the leeway to report accusations and
counteraccusations, theories and counter theories when writing about controversies and such
reportage is given full First Amendment protection. Price v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 881 F.2d
1426, 1444 (8th Cir. 1989). Indeed, in looking at how reporters cover and report on
controversies, the Court must not look at the whether the statements were, in fact false or even
damaging, and must not inquire into the authors state of mind when writing or publishing the
statements, but must instead focus on whether the author is merely reporting other sources (even
theories that turn out to be false) in giving a full picture of the controversy. Id. at 1445-46. In
other words, the First Amendment provides protection to actual depictions of accusations and
controversies without regard to their falsity and truth and the actual malice standard of
[7]
defamation (that is knowledge that the statements were false or reckless disregard of whether it
was false or not) becomes relevant only if the author or publisher fabricates an accusation instead
of simply reporting the accusations and statements of others even if untrue.2 Id. at 1434; see also
Price v. Viking Penguin, Inc.,: The Neutral Reporting Privilege and Robust, Wide Open Debate,
75 Minn. L.Rev. 157, 182-85 (1990).
IV.
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PROHIBITS COUNTY ATTORNEY SMITH

FROM USING HIS PROSECUTORIAL POWERS TO PUNISH MEADE FOR
HIS COMMENTS CRITICAL OF SMITH AND SMITHS WITNESSES IN
THE RICHTER MURDER TRIAL.
County Attorney Smith, it seems, has taken umbrage with Meades depictions of his
handling of the Richter investigation and prosecution and has brought to bear his resources and
power as the County Attorney to retaliate against Meade for such depictions. The due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, prohibits Smith from punishing Meade in
retaliation for Meades decision to investigate and publish critical comments on Smiths conduct
as Sac County Attorney. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974).
Furthermore, it should be noted that all of the cases delineating the actual malice defamation
standard are civil cases and not criminal cases. Public officials who seek redress for unfair
criticisms of their public or private actions are able to seek that redress in civil courts where they
must not only prove that the statement in question was false but that the defendant knew the
statement was false or was reckless in caring whether the statement was false. The case against
Meade is manifestly different in that the government official being criticized is seeking to use his
prosecutorial powers to punish and silence that criticism. In essence, this criminal prosecution is
an action for criminal defamation. County Attorney Smith is trying to resurrect the Sedition Act
of 1798 which criminalized the publication of seditious writings or those writings that were
false, scandalous, and malicious against the government and government officials with intent
to defame, or bring into contempt or disrepute the government. The Sedition Act of 1798 (An
act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States), Approved July 14, 1798.
Although the Sedition Act was never tested in the courts, N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan makes it
clear the Act could not withstand constitutional scrutiny, Although the Sedition Act was never
tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. 376
U.S. 254, 276 (1964); Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (The Alien and Sedition
Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done with
foreverSuppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by
our Constitution).
2
[8]
A bad faith or vindictive prosecution is generally defined as having been brought without
a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction; however, bad faith and harassing
prosecutions also encompass those prosecutions that are intended to retaliate for or discourage
the exercise of constitutional rights. PHE, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 743 F.Supp. 15
(D.C.D.C. 1990). Although prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not unfettered. Selectivity in
the enforcement of criminal laws or prosecution in retaliation for the exercise of constitutional
rights is subject to constitutional constraints. U.S. v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 125 (1979). The
First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of people to petition the
government for redress of grievances. U.S. Const., Amendment 1.
While it is true that false statements may seem have little value in and of themselves, they
are nonetheless constitutionally protected and the real issue is whether that freedom of speech
which all agree is constitutionally protected can be safeguarded by a rule allowing the imposition
of liability upon a courts determination that a statement is false and maliciously motivated.
New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 300 (1964); see also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,
418 U.S. 323, 418 (1974) (The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in
order to protect speech that matters.). A statute that regulates speech critical of public officials
and which implicitly requires the critic to guarantee the truth of every factual assert made about
public officials and prosecutors for fear of potential criminal liability can result in selfcensorship and discourage public debate because the truth or falsity of some claims cannot be
easily determined and may chill the First Amendment rights of some by causing some potential
complainants to be persuaded not to file a complaint for fear of prosecution under the statute.
New Hampshire v. Allard, 813 A.2d 506, 510 (N.H. 2002). This concern is particularly acute in
the context of allegations of police and government misconductsuch allegations will often pit
[9]
the word of a civilian eyewitness against the testimony of several police officers [or other
government officials]. Id.
Moreover, and even more troubling, these cases create a situation wherein the accused
persons are members of the body responsible for investigating the complaint and filing charges.
Id. Needless to say, debate on public issues and criticism of police officers and prosecutors, just
as with other public officials, is speech at the very center of the constitutionally protected area
of free discussion. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966). Official reprisal for protected
speech offends the Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit the exercise of a lawful right,
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588, n 10 (1998), and the law is well settled that as a
general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual
to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out. Perry v. Sindermann,
408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).
To put it more succinctly, to punish Meade because he did what the law plainly allows
him to docomplain of potential prosecutorial misconduct and questionable witness
testimonyis a due process violation of the most basic sort. U.S. v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372
(1982); see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) A claim of prosecutorial
vindictiveness addresses itself to a constitutional defect in the institution of the prosecution and
is a question of law to be determined by the Court and not a question of fact to be presented to a
jury. Butler, 601 A.2d at 270.
A prosecutorial vindictiveness claim is unrelated to the determination of guilt or
innocence. Id. Claims of prosecutorial vindictiveness address themselves to the concern that the
retaliation against the exercise of a constitutional right should prevent the institution or
prosecution of criminal charges against the defendant. Id. at 271, citing with approval U.S. v.
[10]
Krezdorn, 718 F.2d 1360 (5th Cir. 1983), cert denied, Krezdorn v. U.S. 465 U.S. 1066 (1984).
Retaliatory prosecution cases often include a situation in which the chain of causation is complex
and where a non-prosecuting official influenced the prosecutorial decision but did not himself
make it. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 262 (2006). It is often the non-prosecuting official
who acted in retaliation and who induces the prosecutor to bring charges that would not have
been initiated without his urging. Id.
If Meades facts which demonstrate the probability that an adverse action by the
prosecution or the court has been motivated by vindictiveness in retaliation for the successful
exercise of the defendants legal rights rather than for some other legitimate cause, then a
presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness arises which the Commonwealth must rebut with
evidence of legitimate explanation for the challenged conduct. Commonwealth v. Rocco, 544
A.2d 496, 499 (Pa. Super. 1988) (emphasis in original).
/s Glen S. Downey__________________
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
PROOF OF SERVICE
By:
[11]
_____ U.S. Mail

_____Certified Mail
_____ Fax
_____ Other
Signature:_______________________________________
Date:____________________________________________
2RCR22
STATE OF IOWA,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
ORDER SETTING HEARING
DEFENDANT.
The Defendant has filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars and a Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COURT as follows:
1. A Hearing is scheduled on 10/20/2014 at 11:00 AM at the Sac Co. Courthouse,
100 NW State St., Sac City, Iowa. .

SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY
GLEN DOWNEY
If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the disability
coordinator at (641) 421-0990. Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call
Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal
advice.
1 of 2

Case Number
FECR012634
Type:
Case Title
So Ordered
2 of 2

STATE OF IOWA
v.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: FECR012634

MOTION FOR DEFENDANT TO
APPEARBY PHONE
Downey, and files this Motion for Defendant to Appear By Phone at the Pre-trial Conference and
Motions Hearing currently set for October 20, 2014 before this Honorable Court. As grounds for
this Motion, Defendant states the following:
1. A Pretrial Conference in the above-captioned matter is currently scheduled for October
20, 2014 at 9:00 AM.
2. On Monday, October 6, 2014, this Honorable Court scheduled a hearing on Defendants
Motion to Dismiss for that same day at 11:00 AM.
3. Undersigned counsel anticipates filing several other dispositive Motions over the next
couple of days and will ask that the hearings be consolidated with the hearing on Defendants
Motion to Dismiss.
4. Defendant Meade is a resident of California and currently lives on a fixed income.
5. In addition, Defendant Meade has several health conditions which make traveling long
distances difficult and potentially injurious to his long term health.
6. For these reasons, Defendant Meade would like to participate in the Pretrial Conference
and the Motions Hearings by phone on October 20, 2014.
7. Undersigned counsel will be in Sac County to personally attend the Conference and
Hearing.
8. Defendant Meade will waive his personal appearance at these hearings.

9. On October 9, 2014, undersigned counsel exchanged emails with County Attorney Smith
in which Smith consented to the both the filing of this Motion and the relief requested.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Darren Mitchell Meade respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court allow him to waive his personal appearance and appear at the October 20, 2014 Pretrial
Conference and Motions hearings by telephone.
/s Glen S. Downey__________________
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
PROOF OF SERVICE
By:
_____ U.S. Mail

_____Certified Mail
_____ Fax
_____ Other
Signature:_______________________________________
Date:____________________________________________
E-FILED 2014 OCT 09 3:22 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF IOWA
v.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: FECR012634
PROPOSED ORDER
PROPOSED ORDER
AND NOW, this _______ day of October 2014, upon consideration of Defendant
Meades Motion to Appear by Phone, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.
Defendant Meade shall be allowed to participate by phone at both the Pretrial Conference and
the Motions Hearing currently scheduled for October 20, 2014 in the above-captioned matter.
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Cc:
Sac Couty Attorney

Glen S. Downey, Esq.

Type:
OTHER ORDER
Case Number
FECR012634
Case Title
So Ordered
page 2 of 2
Date: 10/09/2014
State of Iowa
Plaintiff
FECR012634
No.
vs.

Defendant
MEDIA COORDINATOR'S NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE

OF TRIAL OR PROCEEDING
COMES NOW the undersigned person, who states as follows:

1. Certain representatives of the news media want to use photographic
equipment
(__X__), television cameras (__X__) or electronic sound recording equipment
(__X__) in courtroom coverage in the above proceeding.
2. This filing is for all pre-trial motions, plea-taking, trial and
sentencing.
3. The request(s) for expanded media coverage are described as follows:
Two video cameras, tripods, videographers; audio accessibility; two
photographers with up to two still cameras and two lenses each, two
tripods.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned media coordinator gives notice of request(s) for
expanded media coverage as aforesaid.
Signature___/S/ Jesse Helling______________________

Date_____10/09/2014___________________
Jesse Helling
Media Coordinator, Region 4
Address: Fort Dodge Messenger
713 Central Ave.
Fort Dodge, IA 50501
Phone: (800)622-6613
Fax: (515)574-4529

STATE OF IOWA
v.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: FECR012634

MOTION FOR SPECIAL
ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONORABLE
THOMAS BICE
COMES NOW undersigned counsel, Glen S. Downey, and files this Motion for
Special Assignment of The Honorable Thomas Bice. In support of this Motion, it is
stated:
1. A Trial Information was filed against Meade on September 2, 2014 alleging, among other
things, that Meade committed witness tampering by publishing articles and comments online
about County Attorney Smith and witnesses who testified in the Tracey Richter murder case
State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900.
2. Prior to the filing of this Trial Information against Meade, County Attorney Smith filed
an Application for a Civil Injunction to Restrain Harassment or Intimidation of Victims of
Witness State of Iowa v, Xcentric Ventures, LLC, CVCV019540.
3. Xcentric Ventures does business as The RipOff Report www.ripoffreport.com. The
RipOff Report is where the complaints and articles Meade wrote about the Richter murder case
were posted.
4. County Attorney Smith filed the injunctive action against Xcentric Ventures seeking to
remove the complaints and articles against the states witnesses in State v. Richter.
5. Xcentric Ventures, LLC filed a Motion to have the case specially assigned and on August
8, 2014, the Court issued an order specially assigning the case to the Honorable Thomas Bice.
6. Then on September 19, 2014, Xcentric Ventures, LLC filed a Motion to Disqualify
County Attorney Smith claiming that Smith placed his own interests ahead of the ethics rules,
the law, and the interests of the people of the State of Iowa.
7. A hearing on the merits of Xcentric Ventures, LLC Motion to Disqualify County
Attorney Smith was held on Friday, October 10, 2014 before the Honorable Thomas Bice.
8. On Sunday, October 12, 2014, rather than risk disqualification from the case against
Xcentric Ventures, LLC, Smith voluntarily dismissed that case.
9. The case against Meade and the Motion for Disqualification involve the same core
nucleus of facts and law as the case against Xcentric Ventures, LLC.
10. In addition, the exhibits and filings in this case and the Xcentric Ventures cases are
voluminous and extremely duplicative.
11. Therefore, Meade respectfully requests that in the interests of judicial economy and in
fairness to both parties, this case be specially assigned to the Honorable Thomas Bice to hear all
matters since Judge Bice is already intimately familiar with these matters.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, through undersigned counsel, moves for there to be special
assignment of the Honorable Thomas Bice to all matters in the above-captioned matter.
Respectfully, Submitted,
/s Glen S. Downey__________________
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
PROOF OF SERVICE
By:
_____ U.S. Mail

_____Certified Mail
_____ Fax
_____ Other
Signature:______________________________________
_
Date:__________________________________________
__

STATE OF IOWA
v.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: FECR012634

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNTY
ATTORNEY
Downey, and moves to disqualify Sac County Attorney Benjamin John Smith in this matter due
to his conflict of interest pursuant to Rule 32:1.7 of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. In
support of this motion, Defendant states the following:
were posted.
5. On September 19, 2014, Xcentric Ventures, LLC filed a Motion to Disqualify County
Attorney Smith claiming that Smith placed his own interests ahead of the ethics rules, the law,
and the interests of the people of the State of Iowa.
6. Specifically, Xcentric Ventures, LLC claims that Smith has a conflict of interest because
the complaints and articles on its website have brought Smith national criticism which he is
intent on removing, that Smith was leaking personal and confidential information about Xcentric
Ventures founder Ed Magedson in violation of the rules of ethics and that Smith has a personal
relationship with Tracey Richters ex-husband Michael Roberts who formerly worked with and
then attempted to extort money from Xcentric Ventures.
7. On October 1, 2014, Smith filed the States response to Xcentric Ventures Motion to
Disqualify him. Although the Brief is 96 pages and includes close to 1000 pages of exhibits,
Smith never directly addresses the allegations that he has a conflict of interest in filing the
injunctive action against Xcentric Ventures. In fact, Smith does NOT address whether he has a
conflict of interest at all. Instead, Smith launches into a diatribe about all of the alleged crimes
Xcentric Ventures, Ed Magedson and Meade have committed, including a claim that these
alleged crimes were intentional and methodical and committed in conjunction with RipOff
Reports attorneys. (SRMTD, p. 3).
8. Undersigned counsel now understands that Xcentric Ventures, LLCs Motion to
Disqualify has been mooted. After a hearing on the merits of Xcentric Ventures Motion on
Friday, October 10, 2014 before Judge Bice who had been specially assigned, County Attorney
Smith voluntarily dismissed the injunctive against Xcentric Ventures on Sunday, October 12,
2014, rather than be disqualified from the case. Undersigned counsel asserts that County
Attorney Smith cannot avoid disqualification in this case but attempting to avoid an order
disqualifying him in the Xcentric Ventures case.
9. Significant and numerous conflicts of interest and the appearances of conflict of interest
exist between Smith and Meade and the various witnesses and participants in the Richter murder
trial and investigation which require a hearing on the merits. Essentially, there is a disagreement
between XCentric Ventures, LLC, Ed Magedson, Meade and Michael Roberts (Tracey Richters
ex-husband) and his various organizations over free-speech on the internet and County Attorney
Smith has decided to align himself with Michael Roberts in this on-going campaign. Smith has
gained inside-information from Roberts and others, including privileged emails, against Meade
in this case and is using them against Meade in a manner that is consistent with a person who has
a personal stake in the outcome of the case and is entirely inconsistent with Smiths duties and
ethics as a prosecutor and with the needs of his constituents in Sac County.
10. These various conflicts of interest or appearances of a conflict of interest are:
a. County Attorney Smith has been directly criticized by Meade for what Meade
believes were instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the way Smith handled the
Richter investigation and prosecution (http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/NOTICEJuly-13-2014-Ripoff-Report-Launches-Full-Investigation-Sac-County-IowaProsecutorsAllegations-Warrant-Unprecedented-Action-from-Ripoffreportcomregarding-Darren-Meade-PostsBen-Smith-Sac-County-Iowa-ProsecutorProsecutorial-Misconduct-Tracey-Richter-Falsely-Convicted-OverwhelmingEvidence-Michael-Roberts-Rexxfield/Sac-City-Iowa-/NOTICE-July-13-2014Ripoff-Report-Launches-Full-Investigationnbsp-Sac-County-Iowa-938843).
b. Smith told 60 Minutes Australia that Meades criticism of him irritated him and
sucked that he would not legitimate the nonsense by discussing it and that
they attack me and the agents. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhtbM1M5Rdo).
Smith suggests that Meades reports are such crap that no one could believe
them anyway. Id. He says Meades attacks were emotionally difficult for
him and almost broke him. Id. Furthermore, Smith has testified that Meade and
his criticisms are annoying, flat-out annoying and that he doesnt want to
have to deal with somebody coming out of the woodwork every six months
because they are contacted by somebody exploring Richters innocence. (Exhibit
1 Excerpts from Hearing Transcript).
c. One of the charges Smith is bringing against Meade apparently relates to a series
of emails Meade and Smith exchanged in April and May of 2012 about the
Richter prosecution in which Meade provided information to Smith about the
case, including statements by Meade that he had contacted a tip line to provide
information to authorities about the Richter case.1 (See Exhibit 1). Smith
apparently now charges that there was no tip line and that Meade was lying and
providing false information to him and to other law enforcement officials. As
such, Smith is now a witness to Meades alleged conduct forming the basis of
some of these charges.
These emails apparently form some basis of Count 10 of the Trial Information in this matter
related to Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3). Undersigned counsel says apparently
because the Trial Information lacks any specifics as to what alleged information given by Meade
to Smith or other law enforcement officials is allegedly false. As such, undersigned counsel filed
a separate Motion for a Bill of Particulars.
4
d. Furthermore, Smith admitted that the Richter case was his life for over a year,
20 hours a day Id., and that as of July 9, 2014, he had spent in excess of 1,500
hours since then further investigating Richter, Meade, Magesdon and others for
posting criticisms about him, agents and witnesses in the Richter murder case. See
Search Warrant Application, July 9, 2014, Sac County District Court. We can
only surmise that because this 1,500 hour figure was before he filed either the
action against Xcentric Ventures, LLC and the Trial Information against Meade
including 50 pages of the Minutes of Testimony and almost 1700 pages of
exhibits attached to the Minutes of Testimonythat that figure has grown
considerably.
e. Smith apparently has developed a personal relationship with Richters now exhusband Michael Roberts, a relationship which consisted of in-person meetings
with Roberts and tons of phone calls with Roberts, including multiple phone
calls a day. (See Exhibit 1). Michael Roberts in a so-called online reputation
expert who was once hired by the RipOff Report to investigate a competing
company after the RipOff Report filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against
that company.2 Roberts then allegedly attempted to extort money from the Ripoff
Report related to alleged hacking and when those extortion efforts were refused,
Roberts began a campaign against the RipOff Report. (See Exhibit 2 Agreement
between Michael Roberts and Xcentric Ventures, LLC). Smith has not only
provided support to Roberts in this campaign against the RipOff Report
(including the injunction action which would remove articles and posts about
2
Michael Roberts is associated with at least two organizations: Rexxfield www.rexxfield.com

& Free Speech V3 www.freespeechv3.org.
5
Roberts, among others) but has also provided support to Roberts in his efforts to
gain custody of his children with Richter, including providing an affidavit in
support and testimony at a child custody hearing for Roberts and contacting the
Australian Consulate on behalf of Roberts (an Australian citizen) in an effort to
allow Roberts to take his children to Australia. (See Exhibit 1 Testimony;
Exhibit 3 Affidavit; Exhibit 4 Letter in Support). Smith, the prosecutor, has
vouched for Roberts credibility and has called him completely and unabashedly
honest, even though Smith was aware that Roberts took a polygraph about the
murder and was judged to be 99% deceptive in his answers. (See Exhibit 5
Polygraph Results).
f. Smith made the highly unusual decision to file an unsealed Search Warrant
Application to seize computers and electronic data from the home of Tracey
Richters mother Anna Richter. The Application is a bizarre and rambling
document 123 page stream-of-consciousness document that continues so much
extraneous, irrelevant and damaging information about Meade and the Ripoff
Report as to be almost unreadable.
11. Smith has a vested personal interest in prosecuting and punishing his criticDarren
Mitchell Meadeand in shutting down and removing articles question his ethics and tactics in
convicting Tracey Richter of murder. His attempted prosecution of his critic not only smacks of
retaliation but is in contravention of the First Amendment.
12. Smith is pursuing this prosecution of Meade not because such a prosecution is in the best
interests of the State of Iowa, because it protects Iowas citizens, or even because it is in
furtherance of legitimate public purpose or interest, but instead he is pursing it with the purpose
of silencing his critics and in helping and aiding those whose business interests lie with the
prosecution of Meade and the silencing of Ed Magedson and Xcentric Ventures, LLC.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Darren Mitchell Meade, respectfully requests the Court to
disqualify the prosecutor of record herein, for the reasons state above, and as further outlined in
Defendants Brief.
/s Glen S. Downey__________________
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
PROOF OF SERVICE
By:
_____ U.S. Mail

_____Certified Mail
_____ Fax
_____ Other
Signature:_______________________________________
Date:____________________________________________

STATE OF IOWA
v.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: FECR012634

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNTY
ATTORNEY BEN SMITH
BACKGROUND
The State of Iowa, through Sac County Attorney Benjamin John Smith, has brought a
ten-count trial information charging one count of Ongoing Criminal Conduct (Iowa Code
706.2(4)), eight counts of Witness Tampering (Iowa Code 720.4; 708.7 & 703.1) and one
count of Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3). Meade now respectfully requests that
pursuant to Rule 32:1.7 of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, this Honorable Court
disqualify Sac County Attorney Benjamin Smith because he possess either an actual conflict of
interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest which requires his removal from the abovecaptioned case.
In pursuing this prosecution of Darren Mitchell Meade, Smith has placed his own
personal interests and the protection of his reputation above the interests of the State of Iowa and
its citizens. Smith is prosecuting Meade not to punish or deter crime but to silence an individual
who has vocally and publically criticized not only Smiths performance as a prosecutor but also
his ethics.
While Smiths decision to prosecute Richter for the murder of Dustin Wehde brought him
and his office national and even international media attention, Meades articles about the case
and about Smiths prosecutorial decisions have brought him public derision. Rather than take
the criticism in stride and as the price of being a public official (as he is constitutionally required
to do), Smith has decided to bring to bear his powers as a prosecutor and the considerable
resources of the State of Iowa to unconstitutionally silence the criticism against him.
Although Meade anticipates that Smith will say this prosecution is about protecting the
States witnesses who testified in the Richter case, including the contention that Smith is not
including a count against Meade related to retaliation against him personally, Smiths conflict of
interest cannot be removed if the same conduct that says is harming the witnesses is allegedly
having the same effect on him.
ARGUMENT
The ethical principles outlined in Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct are used in
evaluating a claim that an attorney should be disqualified from representing a party. Bottoms
v. Stapelton, 706 N.W.2d 411, 415 (Iowa 2005). The rules apply to private attorneys and
prosecutors alike, See ICA Rule 32:1.11, and so Smith is bound by the rules just like any other
licensed attorney.
Rule 32:1.7 of the Iowa Rules of Professional conduct states that a lawyer shall not
represent a client if the representation of that client would involve a concurrent conflict of
interest and if there is a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited by a
personal interest of the lawyer. Furthermore, a conflict of interest exists when an attorney is
placed in a situation conducive to divided loyalties. State v. Watson, 620 N.W.2d 233, 239
(Iowa 200) (quoting Smith v. Lockhart, 933 F.2d 1314, 1320 (8th Cir. 1991). It is not necessary
for this Honorable Court to determine whether Smith possesses an actual conflict of interest in
prosecuting this case because under the Iowa Constitution it is not necessary to definitively
demonstrate the existence of an actual conflict; rather it is enough to demonstrate a "substantial
[2]
possibility" that a conflict could affect the attorney's representation. See Nichol v. State, 309
N.W.2d 468, 470 (Iowa 1981) cited in In re J.P.B., 419 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Iowa 1988).
Also, as here, where there exists a real possibly that County Attorney Smith was both a
witness to some aspect of the alleged crime and a victim of the alleged crime, a sufficient
showing of a real or apparent conflict exists to necessitate the disqualification of Smith. See
Hambarian v. Superior Court, 88 Cal. App. 4th 163 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2001) (there exists, as a
matter of law, the real possibility that the prosecutor or his office may not exercise its
discretionary function in an even handed manner where the prosecutor or his office is a victim of
the crime); State v. Cope, 30 Kan.App. 2d 893, 897 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that where the
prosecutor is a targeted victim of the crime, the prosecutor would be personally or emotionally
invested in the outcome of the crime charged and this status would obviously impair the
prosecutors obligation to act with impartiality towards the State and the accused).
There exist two widely-held policy considerations for Courts when determining whether
prosecutors like Smith should be disqualified for a personal conflict of interest. The first policy
consideration is generally categorized as fairness to the accused because the duty of the
prosecutor is not to obtain a conviction but to obtain justice. The second policy served by
disqualification of the prosecutor for a conflict of interest is the preservation of the public
confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the criminal justice system. See People v. Doyle,
159 Mich. App. 632, 643-45 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) (collecting cases from multiple jurisdictions
outlining these policy considerations); see also Doe v. Perry Cmt. Sch. District, 650 N.W.2d 594
(Iowa 2002) (holding that Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by irresponsible
or improper conduct of a lawyer). A conflict of interest involving the elected County
Prosecutor requires disqualification of the entire office. Id.
[3]
As the accompanying Motion for Disqualification makes clear, there are multiple reasons
for this court to find and/or presume that County Attorney Smith has severe divided loyalties and
therefore both an actual conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict or impropriety.
I.
DISQUALIFICATION OF SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY SMITH IS REQUIRED

BECAUSE AS THE SOLE INVESTIGATOR IN THIS MATTER, HE HAS AN
ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHICH IMPAIRS HIS ABILITY TO ACT
IMPARTIALLY.
First, Smith personally investigated, wrote and then filed an unsealed 123 page Search
Warrant Application on Anna Richters house looking for evidence against Meade.
Smiths assumption of the role of the sole investigator in the case against Meade raises
significant and troubling conflict of interest issues, including whether Smith could be called to
testify as to information learned during his investigation. This issue alone requires
disqualification of Smith because 1) Smith cannot be both the prosecutor and witness in this
case; See Comment Rule 3.7 (6) Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct; and 2) as the sole
investigator and author of the Search Warrant Application which comprises the bulk of
evidence in the case, Smith possesses an actual conflict of interest. See State v. Whitworth,
1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 4129 (Mo. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 1985) (citing with approval to State v.
Nicholson, 7 S.W.2d 375 (Mo.App. 1928) which held a prosecutor must be disqualified who
swore to and filed an application for a search warrant).
II.
DISQUALIFICATION OF SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY SMITH IS

REQUIRED BECAUSE SMITH IS A VICTIM OF THE ALLEGED CRIMES
AND THEREFORE POSSESSES AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Second, Smith must be disqualified as the prosecutor because Smith is a victim to the
alleged crimes that are at the heart of this matter.

It is undisputed that Meade has published articles that have publically criticized Smith
and his handling of the Richter murder investigation and prosecution. Meade has published
[4]
articles accusing Smith of prosecutorial misconduct in the case, including the belief that Smith
failed to investigate viable suspectsnamely Richters now ex-husband Michael Robertsand
that Smith knowingly suborned perjury from some of the states witnesses. See
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Michael-Roberts-Rexxfield-Sac-County-Attorney-Ben-SmithGrostesque-Prosecutorial-Misconduct-Tracey-Richter-Murder-Trial-Out-to-Destroy-RipoffReport-Ed-Magedson-After-Refusing-To-Delete-Reports/Iowa/Michael-Roberts-Rexxfield-SacCounty-Attorney-Ben-Smith-Grostesque-Prosecutorial-Miscondu-1106912; and
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Re-investigation-Uncovers-Evidence-of-Innocence-Attorney-BenSmith-Sac-County-Iowa-Eaves-Dropped-on-Confidential-Calls-Between-Tracey-Richter-andDefense-Counsel-Sac-City-IA-Reliance-Telephone/Sac-City-Iowa/Re-investigation-UncoversEvidence-of-Innocence-Attorney-Ben-Smith-Sac-County-Iowa-Eaves-1124380.
Smith cannot avoid the actual conflict and especially not the appearance of a conflict by
failing to charge Meade with statements he made against Smith when he is charging Meade with
statements he made against other government officials involved with Smith and the Richter
murder case. Smith has indicated in media statements how much Meades articles and
accusations have hurt him personally, going so far as to say that Meades criticism of him
irritated him and sucked that he would not legitimate the nonsense by discussing it and
that they attack me and the agents. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhtbM1M5Rdo). Smiths
own words show the depths of his feelings about Meade and Meades criticisms: Its fair to say,
if you look on the internet, Ive been lumped in with all these thingsit sucks to see these
thingsit is just utter garbage, utter nonsense. Id. He goes on to elaborate: [t]hey attack not
the facts, but the people that are presenting the facts: ME; the agents; the Sherriff; the witnesses.
Id. Indeed, Smith testified that Meade and his criticisms are annoying, flat-out annoying and
[5]
that he doesnt want to have to deal with somebody coming out of the woodwork every six
months because they are contacted by somebody exploring Richters innocence. (See Exhibit 1
attached to the accompanying Motion to Disqualify).
Whether or not Meades statements about Smith and his handling of the Richter case are true
or not is unimportant because the statements themselves create the real risk and certainly the
appearance that Smith will be unable to put aside his obvious annoyance and hurt feelings in
punishing the very critic who created those feelings to begin with. Indeed, his words and phrases
are telling. Although he is not attempting to claim he is a victim in the Trial Information, his
statements to the media undermine his belief in this fiction. Notice how when listing the people
being allegedly attacked by Meades criticism, Smith lists himself and his co-government
employees first and the real victims last: [t]hey attack not the facts, but the people that are
presenting the facts: ME; the agents; the Sherriff; the witnesses.
(www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhtbM1M5Rdo). As a victim on of the alleged crimes
(notwithstanding the rather dubious nature of the crimes to begin with), Smith cannot be the
prosecutor as well. See Hambarian v. Superior Court, 88 Cal. App. 4th 163 (Cal. App. 4th Dist.
2001); State v. Cope, 30 Kan.App. 2d 893, 897 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
III.
DISQUALIFICATION OF SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY SMITH IS

REQUIRED BECAUSE SMITHS RELATIONSHIP WITH TRACEY
RICHTERS EX-HUSBAND MICHAEL ROBERTS CREATES BOTH AN
ACTUAL AND APPARENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Smith has repeatedly demonstrated that he has a personal interest in protecting Michael
Roberts, Tracey Richters ex-husband, and in siding with Michael Roberts in his on-going war
with Meade and the RipOff Report over articles on Roberts and Roberts clients posted on the
RipOff Report. As such, Smith has a personal conflict of interest which prevents him from
prosecuting a case into which he has personally injected himself.
[6]
It is undisputed that as an Iowa County prosecutor, Smiths help for Michael Roberts is
highly unusual and quite extraordinary. Smith has stated that he personally met with Roberts,
had tons of phone calls with Roberts, sometimes many phone calls in a day. (See Exhibit 1).
In addition, Smith has personally vouched for Roberts credibility, calling him completely and
unabashedly honest, despite the fact that Smith knew Roberts was found to be 99% deceptive
on his initial polygraph examination regarding the murder of Dustin Wehde. (See Exhibit 1;
Exhibit 5). Smith also took the unusual step of pleading with the Australian consulate to take
action to allow Roberts to leave the United States with his children. (See Exhibit 4).
Furthermore, it seems clear from the exhibits that Smith has attached to his Minutes of
Testimony and other pleadings in this matter and the overlapping matter against Xcentric
Ventures, LLC, that he has been receiving material and investigative support from Michael
Roberts and others in getting information and privileged emails from Meade. Smiths July 9,
2014 Search Warrant Application is full of outrageous and quite frankly irrelevant and
prejudicial statements against Meade.
Smiths use of Roberts and others to investigate Meade without a warrant and to make
statements against Meade and Xcentric Ventures, LLC that he himself could otherwise not
makes violates Rule 32:3.8 of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct which requires that a
prosecutor exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators and others assisting or associated
with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor
would be prohibited from making. The comments to this rule note that [a] prosecutor has the
responsibility as a minister of justice and not simply that as an advocate. The comment goes on
to elaborate that:
In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutors extrajudicial statement can
create the additional problem of increasing public condemnation of the accused.
[7]
Although the announcement of an indictment, for example, will necessarily have

severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid
comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a
substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused.
Even a generous reading of the unsealed Search Warrant Application of July 9, 2014,
shows it to be one long extra-judicial statement meant to subject Meade and others at Xcentric
Ventures, LLC to public condemnation or ridicule. At the point it was unsealed, the
investigation into Meades alleged crimes was still ongoing. Smith risked compromising the
investigation by unsealing the application and the only logical conclusion as to why he would
take this extraordinary measure was to smear Meade and to subject him to the same type of
public ridicule and contempt that Smith that Meade was subjecting the prosecutor to. This alone
leaves the unavoidable taint that Smith has an inappropriate personal stake in the outcome of this
prosecution. See State v. Rivera, Kan.App. 2d 417, 435 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that the
key to deciding whether a prosecutor should be disqualified is whether the prosecutor has a
significant personal interest in the litigation which would impair the prosecutors obligation to
act impartially toward both the State and the accused). It is undisputed that if Smith were
allowed to successfully prosecute Meade, Smith would be silencing one of his main critics,
something which his statements and his siding with Michael Roberts make clear he desires
desperately.
[8]
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Smith has a clear, unmistakable and, in fact, unavoidable conflict
of interest in this matter. Even if he did not possess this actual conflict, the unavoidable
appearance of impropriety Smith possesses in attempting to prosecute the loud and public
criticism of him as a prosecutor will undermine the integrity of the court system, damage the
faith of the citizens of Iowa in the courts and administration of justice. The facts supporting
these conclusions are overwhelming and because of that, Smith must be removed from any and
all involvement in this case immediately. See Keefe v. Bernard, 774 N.W.2d 663 (Iowa 2009)
(the proper remedy for a conflict of interest is attorney disqualification from representation).
/s Glen S. Downey__________________
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
PROOF OF SERVICE
By:
_____ U.S. Mail

_____Certified Mail
_____ Fax
_____ Other
Signature:_______________________________________
Date:____________________________________________
[9]

STATE OF IOWA,
Case No. FECR012634
Plaintiff,
v.
MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING

Defendant.
COMES NOW the State of Iowa, through Sac County Attorney Ben Smith,
and in support of its motion states that hearing on Defendants motion to dismiss
the States Trial Information should be continued to allow the Court time to rule
on Defendants motion to specially assign Judge Bice to hear the matter.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the State requests that this
Court continue the hearing on Defendants motion to dismiss.
__________________________
Benjamin John Smith
Sac County Attorney
Sac City IA 50583
Telephone: 712-662-4791
2RCR01
STATE OF IOWA,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
ORDER
DEFENDANT.
On this date the defendant's motion to specially assign the Honorable Tom Bice to this
case was presented to this court. In communication with Judge Bice he has more than a
full plate of scheduled trials to the end of this year and requests that he not be specially
assigned to any further trials.
It Is Ordered that the motion to specially assign Judge Bice to this case is denied.

SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY
GLEN DOWNEY
Ms. Kellie Orres
1 of 2

Case Number
FECR012634
Type:
Case Title
OTHER ORDER
So Ordered
2 of 2

STATE OF IOWA,
Case No. FECR012634
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER CONTINUE HEARING

Defendant.
This matter came before the Court on the States motion to continue the
hearing on Defendants motion to dismiss. The Court, upon reviewing the record
and being advised in the premises, FINDS and ORDERS that the hearing on
Defendants motion to dismiss shall be and is continued to November 3, 2014 at
10:30 a.m.

Type:
OTHER ORDER
Case Number
FECR012634
Case Title
So Ordered
page 2 of 2
2RCR22
STATE OF IOWA,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
DEFENDANT.
The Defendant has filed a Motion to Disqualify County Attorney.

A hearing on the bill of particulars and motion to dismiss have been set for
November 3, 2014. This matter should be heard at the same time.
IT IS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COURT as follows:
1. A Hearing is scheduled on 11/03/2014 at 10:30 AM at the Sac Co. Courthouse,
100 NW State St., Sac City, Iowa. .

SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY
GLEN DOWNEY
If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the disability
coordinator at (641) 421-0990. Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call
Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal
advice.
1 of 2

Case Number
FECR012634
Type:
Case Title
So Ordered
2 of 2
X25DNY
STATE OF IOWA
Plaintiff
vs.
No. 02811 FECR012634

Order Granting Request for Expanded
News Media Coverage of Trial or Proceeding

Defendant
A request for expanded news media coverage of a trial or proceeding scheduled to occur
November 3, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. at the Sac County Courthouse, Sac City, Iowa, has been presented.
Notice of the request for expanded news media coverage was sent electronically, delivered by
ordinary mail, or delivered in person to the last known address of all attorneys of record, parties
without representation, and the district court administrator for this judicial district.
The notice of the request for expanded news media coverage was given as follows:
At least seven days before the proceeding for which expanded news media coverage was
requested.
The request is granted as follows:
1. Representatives of the news media may use the following in courtroom coverage of the trial or
proceeding (Check each that applies);
Photographic equipment, ;
Television cameras, ;
Electronic sound recording equipment, ;
Other electronic devices, .
2. Expanded news media coverage is permitted for every part of such proceeding as allowed under
Chapter 25 of the Iowa Court Rules except as follows:
If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the disability coordinator at (641)
421-0990. Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942).
Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice.
1 of 2

Case Number
FECR012634
Type:
Case Title
OTHER ORDER
So Ordered
2 of 2

STATE OF IOWA
v.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: FECR012634

AMENDED
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNTY ATTORNEY1
Downey, and moves to disqualify Sac County Attorney Benjamin John Smith in this matter due
to his conflict of interest pursuant to Rule 32:1.7 of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. In
support of this motion, Defendant states the following:
were posted.
Undersigned counsel is amending his original Motion to Disqualify to add additional factual
information supporting disqualification.
5. On September 19, 2014, Xcentric Ventures, LLC filed a Motion to Disqualify County
Attorney Smith claiming that Smith placed his own interests ahead of the ethics rules, the law,
and the interests of the people of the State of Iowa.
6. Specifically, Xcentric Ventures, LLC claims that Smith has a conflict of interest because
the complaints and articles on its website have brought Smith national criticism which he is
intent on removing, that Smith was leaking personal and confidential information about Xcentric
Ventures founder Ed Magedson in violation of the rules of ethics and that Smith has a personal
relationship with Tracey Richters ex-husband Michael Roberts who formerly worked with and
then attempted to extort money from Xcentric Ventures.
7. On October 1, 2014, Smith filed the States response to Xcentric Ventures Motion to
Disqualify him. Although the Brief is 96 pages and includes close to 1000 pages of exhibits,
Smith never directly addresses the allegations that he has a conflict of interest in filing the
injunctive action against Xcentric Ventures. In fact, Smith does NOT address whether he has a
conflict of interest at all. Instead, Smith launches into a diatribe about all of the alleged crimes
Xcentric Ventures, Ed Magedson and Meade have committed, including a claim that these
alleged crimes were intentional and methodical and committed in conjunction with RipOff
Reports attorneys. (SRMTD, p. 3).
8. Undersigned counsel now understands that Xcentric Ventures, LLCs Motion to
Disqualify has been mooted. After a hearing on the merits of Xcentric Ventures Motion on
Friday, October 10, 2014 before Judge Bice who had been specially assigned, County Attorney
Smith voluntarily dismissed the injunctive against Xcentric Ventures on Sunday, October 12,
2014, rather than be disqualified from the case. Undersigned counsel asserts that County
Attorney Smith cannot avoid disqualification in this case but attempting to avoid an order
disqualifying him in the Xcentric Ventures case.
9. Significant and numerous conflicts of interest and the appearances of conflict of interest
exist between Smith and Meade and the various witnesses and participants in the Richter murder
trial and investigation which require a hearing on the merits. Essentially, there is a disagreement
between XCentric Ventures, LLC, Ed Magedson, Meade and Michael Roberts (Tracey Richters
ex-husband) and his various organizations over free-speech on the internet and County Attorney
Smith has decided to align himself with Michael Roberts in this on-going campaign. Smith has
gained inside-information from Roberts and others, including privileged emails, against Meade
in this case and is using them against Meade in a manner that is consistent with a person who has
a personal stake in the outcome of the case and is entirely inconsistent with Smiths duties and
ethics as a prosecutor and with the needs of his constituents in Sac County.
10. These various conflicts of interest or appearances of a conflict of interest are:
a. County Attorney Smith has been directly criticized by Meade for what Meade
believes were instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the way Smith handled the
Richter investigation and prosecution (http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/NOTICEJuly-13-2014-Ripoff-Report-Launches-Full-Investigation-Sac-County-IowaProsecutorsAllegations-Warrant-Unprecedented-Action-from-Ripoffreportcomregarding-Darren-Meade-PostsBen-Smith-Sac-County-Iowa-ProsecutorProsecutorial-Misconduct-Tracey-Richter-Falsely-Convicted-OverwhelmingEvidence-Michael-Roberts-Rexxfield/Sac-City-Iowa-/NOTICE-July-13-2014Ripoff-Report-Launches-Full-Investigationnbsp-Sac-County-Iowa-938843).
b. Smith told 60 Minutes Australia that Meades criticism of him irritated him and
sucked that he would not legitimate the nonsense by discussing it and that
they attack me and the agents. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhtbM1M5Rdo).
Smith suggests that Meades reports are such crap that no one could believe
them anyway. Id. He says Meades attacks were emotionally difficult for
him and almost broke him. Id. Furthermore, Smith has testified that Meade and
his criticisms are annoying, flat-out annoying and that he doesnt want to
have to deal with somebody coming out of the woodwork every six months
because they are contacted by somebody exploring Richters innocence. (Exhibit
1 Excerpts from Hearing Transcript).
c. One of the charges Smith is bringing against Meade apparently relates to a series
of emails Meade and Smith exchanged in April and May of 2012 about the
Richter prosecution in which Meade provided information to Smith about the
case, including statements by Meade that he had contacted a tip line to provide
information to authorities about the Richter case.2 (See Exhibit 1). Smith
apparently now charges that there was no tip line and that Meade was lying and
providing false information to him and to other law enforcement officials. As
such, Smith is now a witness to Meades alleged conduct forming the basis of
some of these charges.
These emails apparently form some basis of Count 10 of the Trial Information in this matter
related to Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3). Undersigned counsel says apparently
because the Trial Information lacks any specifics as to what alleged information given by Meade
to Smith or other law enforcement officials is allegedly false. As such, undersigned counsel filed
a separate Motion for a Bill of Particulars.
4
d. Furthermore, Smith admitted that the Richter case was his life for over a year,
20 hours a day Id., and that as of July 9, 2014, he had spent in excess of 1,500
hours since then further investigating Richter, Meade, Magesdon and others for
posting criticisms about him, agents and witnesses in the Richter murder case. See
Search Warrant Application, July 9, 2014, Sac County District Court. We can
only surmise that because this 1,500 hour figure was before he filed either the
action against Xcentric Ventures, LLC and the Trial Information against Meade
including 50 pages of the Minutes of Testimony and almost 1700 pages of
exhibits attached to the Minutes of Testimonythat that figure has grown
considerably.
e. Smith apparently has developed a personal relationship with Richters now exhusband Michael Roberts, a relationship which consisted of in-person meetings
with Roberts and tons of phone calls with Roberts, including multiple phone
calls a day. (See Exhibit 1). Michael Roberts is a so-called online reputation
expert who was once hired by the RipOff Report to investigate a competing
company after the RipOff Report filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against
that company.3 Roberts then allegedly attempted to extort money from the Ripoff
Report related to alleged hacking and when those extortion efforts were refused,
Roberts began a campaign against the RipOff Report. (See Exhibit 2 Agreement
between Michael Roberts and Xcentric Ventures, LLC). Smith has not only
provided support to Roberts in this campaign against the RipOff Report
(including the injunction action which would remove articles and posts about
3
Michael Roberts is associated with at least two organizations: Rexxfield www.rexxfield.com

& Free Speech V3 www.freespeechv3.org.
5
Roberts, among others) but has also provided support to Roberts in his efforts to
gain custody of his children with Richter, including providing an affidavit in
support and testimony at a child custody hearing for Roberts and contacting the
Australian Consulate on behalf of Roberts (an Australian citizen) in an effort to
allow Roberts to take his children to Australia. (See Exhibit 1 Testimony;
Exhibit 3 Affidavit; Exhibit 4 Letter in Support). Smith, the prosecutor, has
vouched for Roberts credibility and has called him completely and unabashedly
honest, even though Smith was aware that Roberts took a polygraph about the
murder and was judged to be 99% deceptive in his answers. (See Exhibit 5
Polygraph Results). Furthermore, Smith, by Roberts own admission, personally
vouched for and/or offered to vouch for Roberts fitness to receive a personal loan
to help staunch the bleeding and hemorrhaging of some of his business entities,
including Rexxfield. When asked whether Roberts contacted the potential
financial backer about asking Ben Smith for a character reference, Roberts
replied, [p]ossibly, and then Im pretty sure she spoke to Ben Smith. (See
Exhibit 6 Hearing Transcript, p. 50, ll. 21-25).
f. Smith made the highly unusual decision to file an unsealed Search Warrant
Application to seize computers and electronic data from the home of Tracey
Richters mother Anna Richter. The Application is a bizarre and rambling
document 123 page stream-of-consciousness document that continues so much
extraneous, irrelevant and damaging information about Meade and the Ripoff
Report as to be almost unreadable.
g. Smith is engaged to and will marry prosecution star witness Mary Higgins
daughter, Abbie (Abigail Marie) Higgins on November 15, 2014 in Early, Iowa.
(See Exhibit 7 Wedding Registry and Obituary Notice). Mary Higgins
described herself as Tracey Richters friend but was also a key witness who
testified for the state against Richter in State v. Richter, Sac County District
Court, Case No. FECR011900. This relationship with the daughter of one of the
states main witnesses in State v. Richter by itself should disqualify Smith from
prosecuting Meades case, especially in light of the fact that Meade criticizes and
questions Mary Higgins story about the pink notebook and when the existence
of that pink notebook was revealed to Higgins by Tracey Richter. Although
Smith does not charge Meade with harassing or retaliating against Mary Higgins
(just like he doesnt charge Meade with harassing or retaliating against Smith
himself), this failure does nothing to remove the taint of conflict. Assume a
prosecutor was the victim of a drive-by shooting along with four other people, the
prosecutor cannot claim he has no conflict simply by failing to charge the
defendant with attempting to kill the prosecutor. The conflict remains despite
Smiths attempts to mask or hide it.
11. Smith has a vested personal interest in prosecuting and punishing his criticDarren
Mitchell Meadeand in shutting down and removing articles question his ethics and tactics in
convicting Tracey Richter of murder. His attempted prosecution of his critic not only smacks of
retaliation but is in contravention of the First Amendment.
12. Smith is pursuing this prosecution of Meade not because such a prosecution is in the best
interests of the State of Iowa, because it protects Iowas citizens, or even because it is in
furtherance of legitimate public purpose or interest, but instead he is pursing it with the purpose
of silencing his critics and in helping and aiding those whose business interests lie with the
prosecution of Meade and the silencing of Ed Magedson and Xcentric Ventures, LLC.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Darren Mitchell Meade, respectfully requests the Court to
disqualify the prosecutor of record herein, for the reasons state above, and as further outlined in
Defendants Brief.
/s Glen S. Downey__________________
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
PROOF OF SERVICE
By:
_____ U.S. Mail

_____Certified Mail
_____ Fax
_____ Other
Signature:_______________________________________
Date:____________________________________________

STATE OF IOWA,
Case No. FECR012634
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant.
MOTION TO RESCHEDULE
HEARING ON DEFENDANTS
PRETRIAL MOTIONS, PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE, AND TRIAL
COMES NOW the State of Iowa, through Sac County Attorney Ben Smith,
and in support of its motion states the following:
1. Defendants Motion for Bill of Particulars, Motion to Disqualify County
Attorney, Motion to Dismiss Trial Information (pretrial motions), and Pretrial
Conference are all scheduled to be heard on November 3, 2014. The Trial is
scheduled for November 4, 2014.
2. Today, Defendant amended his Motion to Disqualify County Attorney
to include additional allegations of serious misconduct on the part of the
undersigned.
3. The undersigned will be on military orders with the Iowa Army Guard
from October 30 through November 2, 2014, and, therefore, will have insufficient
opportunity to prepare to defend against Defendants new allegations of
misconduct before Mondays hearing.
4. Additionally, it is unlikely the Court would be able to rule on all of the
issues raised in Defendants pretrial motions in just one day.
5. The next available motion day in Sac County for the undersigned is
December 1, 2014. The next available trial date in Sac County is January 27,
2015.
6. Defendant will not be prejudiced by rescheduling these matters to a

later date as he has waived his right to speedy trial and been given permission to
appear telephonically in the preliminary matters.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the State requests that the
Court reschedule the November 3, 2014, hearing on Defendants pretrial motions
to December 1, 2014, the Pretrial Conference to January 26, 2015, and the Trial
to January 27, 2015.
__________________________
Benjamin John Smith
Sac County Attorney
Sac City IA 50583
Telephone: 712-662-4791

STATE OF IOWA,
Case No. FECR012634
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant.
ORDER RESCHEDULING HEARING

ON DEFENDANTS PRETRIAL
MOTIONS, PRETRIAL
This matter came before the Court on the States motion to reschedule the
hearing on Defendants pretrial motions, the pretrial conference, and trial. The
Court, upon reviewing the record and being advised in the premises FINDS and
ORDERS that for the reasons set forth in the States motion, the hearing on
Defendants pretrial motions is rescheduled to December 1, 2014, the pretrial
conference is rescheduled to January 26, 2015, and the Trial rescheduled to
January 27, 2015.

Type:
ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE
Case Number
FECR012634
Case Title
So Ordered
page 2 of 2

STATE OF IOWA,
Case No. FECR012634
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant.
ORDER RESCHEDULING HEARING

ON DEFENDANTS PRETRIAL
MOTIONS, PRETRIAL
This matter came before the Court on the States motion to reschedule the
hearing on Defendants pretrial motions, the pretrial conference, and trial. The
Court, upon reviewing the record and being advised in the premises FINDS and
ORDERS that for the reasons set forth in the States motion, the hearing on
Defendants pretrial motions is rescheduled to December 1, 2014, the pretrial
conference is rescheduled to January 26, 2015, and the Trial rescheduled to
January 27, 2015.

Type:
ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE
Case Number
FECR012634
Case Title
So Ordered
page 2 of 2
E-FILED 2014 NOV 25 12:19 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF IOWA
v.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: FECR012634

AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS1
COMES NOW Darren Mitchell Meade, by and through undersigned counsel, Glen S. Downey,
and moves to dismiss counts 1 through 10 of the Trial Information under Iowa R. Crim. Proc.
2.11(6)(a). In support of this Amended Motion, Defendant states the following:
1. The criminal charges against Darren Meade were filed without an assertion of probable
cause and without the specificity required to provide Meade with the due process necessary to
adequately defend himself.
2. Counsel has filed a separate Motion for a Bill of Particulars asking the Court order the
State to supplement the Trial Information and Minutes of Testimony. Those documents, while
certainly voluminous, are mostly irrelevant and filled with detail devoid of specific criminal
conduct which would allow the state to charge Meade with one count of Ongoing Criminal
Conduct (Iowa Code 706.2(4)), eight counts of Witness Tampering (Iowa Code 720.4;
708.7 & 703.1), and one count of Obstructing prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3).
3. This case is profoundly and substantially flawed and reeks of retaliation by County
Attorney Ben Smith for Meade engaging in constitutionally protected speech that was, among
other things, critical of County Attorney Smith and his performance as a prosecutor.
1
Counsel is filing this Amended Motion to Dismiss to add section IV of this Brief related to
argument that Iowa Code 720.4 is overbroad because it criminalizes substantially more pure
speech that the Constitution allows to be regulated and as such the statute cannot survive
constitutional scrutiny.
4. Furthermore, much of alleged criminal conduct in the Trial Information occurred more
than two years ago and in California and is therefore beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Iowa
and County Attorney Smith, a fact so obvious that it only adds to the supposition that County
Attorney Smith is using his prosecutorial powers not to prosecute crimes but to silence his
critics.
5. Never before has a journalist been charged in Iowa (or elsewhere) for merely reporting
about his belief that a flawed criminal prosecution may have resulted in the incarceration of an
innocent woman.
6. Not only does the attempted prosecution of Meade punish him for engaging in his
constitutional right to criticize public officials and report on controversies and the people
involved in those controversies, this prosecution chills the rights of all journalists to report on
matters of public concern, especially when those matters are critical of someone with the power
to criminally prosecute them if there is disagreement with that reporting.
7. Mere disagreement with and/or mere inaccuracies in the reporting are not grounds to
bring a criminal prosecution, let alone grounds to support a criminal conviction. Criminal
charges are never appropriate if used to silence critical speech.
8. Furthermore, because Iowa Code 720.4 is being used to impose criminal defamation
liability on pure speech regardless of whether that speech is truthful and/or not knowingly false,
Iowa Code 720.4 criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech is
therefore overbroad and violates the First Amendment.
9. Bringing criminal charges against Meade impinges on one of the cornerstones of our
democracythe need for a robust and wide-open public debateand as such, justice demands
the charges against Meade be dismissed in their entirety.
10. The basis for the Amended Motion to Dismiss are more fully discussed in the Brief filed
in support of this Motion.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Darren Mitchell Meade, respectfully requests the Court
dismiss the state charges as a matter of law.
/s Glen S. Downey__________________
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
PROOF OF SERVICE
By:
_____ U.S. Mail

_____Certified Mail
_____ Fax
_____ Other
Signature:_______________________________________
Date:____________________________________________

STATE OF IOWA
v.
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: FECR012634

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED
MOTION TO DISMISS1
BACKGROUND
The State of Iowa has brought a ten-count trial information charging one count of
Ongoing Criminal Conduct (Iowa Code 706.2(4)), eight counts of Witness Tampering (Iowa
Code 720.4; 708.7 & 703.1) and one count of Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3).
These charges against Meade must be dismissed as a matter of law for several reasons.
1. First, even if all of the States rather preposterous evidence and theories are taken at face
value, all of Meades conduct would have occurred in California and not within Iowa and
therefore, the State of Iowa has no territorial jurisdiction to pursue such charges against Meade.
Second, Meades conduct in writing and posting stories relating to the Tracy Richter murder
prosecution and his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by Sac County Attorney Ben Smith
does not fall within the ambit of prohibited conduct under section 720.4 related to witness
tampering. Third, the witness tampering and obstructing prosecution charges attempt to
criminalize conduct that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
County Attorney Ben Smith can disagree with Meades assessment of his performance of as a
prosecutor and investigator and can disagree with Meades opinion that not all of the States
witnesses in the Richter case were truthful on the stand, but the First Amendment clearly protects
1
Counsel is filing this Amended Brief in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss to add
section IV of this Brief related to argument that Iowa Code 720.4 is overbroad because it
criminalizes substantially more pure speech that the Constitution allows to be regulated and as
such the statute cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.
such criticisms, indeed, the First Amendment places such criticisms on the highest rung of
protected speech and therefore any attempt to criminalize such criticisms runs afoul of First
Amendment jurisprudence. Fourth, because Iowa Code 720.4 is being used to impose criminal
defamation liability on pure speech regardless of whether that speech is truthful and/or not
knowingly false, Iowa Code 720.4 criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally
protected speech is therefore overbroad and violates the First Amendment. And finally, the
criminal charges brought against Meade reek of prosecutorial vindictiveness for Meades
engagement is this constitutionally protected right to criticize government officials namely
County Attorney Smith and the officers who investigated the Richter case and to report on the
theories and accusations surrounding that murder case.
ARGUMENT
I.
THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO

CONFER TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ON IOWA BECAUSE EVEN TAKEN
THE STATES EVIDENCE AT FACE VALUE, ALL OF THE ALLEGED ACTS
BY MEADE OCCURRED WHOLLY IN CALIFORNIA.
As an initial matter, Meade moves to dismiss all of the counts against him because even
accepting the wild facts alleged in Smiths minutes of evidence as true, all of the conduct alleged
to have been committed by Meade occurred within the state of California and therefore the state
of Iowa does not have territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Meade for these alleged offenses.
Territorial jurisdiction to prosecute a criminal offense generally rests in the courts of the
state where the offense was committed. State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181, 184 (Iowa 1994). It is
an essential element of every crime, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution requires the State to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at
184-85. Iowas criminal jurisdiction statute is found in Iowa Code section 803.1. This section
provides, in pertinent part:
[2]
1. A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which the person commits
within or outside this state, by the person's own conduct or that of another for which the
person is legally accountable, if:
a. The offense is committed either wholly or partly within this state.
b. Conduct of the person outside the state constitutes an attempt to commit an
c. Conduct of the person outside the state constitutes a conspiracy to commit an
d. The offense is based upon a statute that specifically prohibits conduct wholly
outside of the state, and the conduct bears a reasonable relation to a legitimate
state interest, and the person knows or should know that the conduct is likely to
affect that interest.
e. Conduct of the person within this state constitutes an attempt, solicitation or
conspiracy to commit an offense in another jurisdiction, which conduct is
punishable under the laws of both this state and such other jurisdiction.
Nothing in the Trial Information or Minutes of Testimony alleges that Meade ever set
foot in Iowa. Meade is and has been a resident of California during all of the times frames
outlined in the States Trial Information and has never traveled to Iowa during any of the times
the State alleges he committed the alleged crimes detailed by the State. This fact is not in
dispute.
Count 1 (A-G) of the Trial Information related to on-going criminal conduct (Iowa Code
section 706A.2(4)) specifically states for every alleged crime that in the State of California,
Defendant. Each sub-part then lists an alleged crime including extortion, embezzlement,
accepting a bribe, etc. There are zero allegations that any of these alleged crimes occurred in
Iowa, had any connection to people residing in or doing business in Iowa and absolutely no
allegations that any of the on-going criminal conduct outlined in Count 1 was part of a
conspiracy to commit any offense in the state of Iowa. In fact, all of the allegations in Count 1 of
the Trial Information related to a business dispute in California which was litigated in the
California courts between various nutrition companies and its various officers and agents. That
litigation resulted in a binding settlement agreement between the parties that was signed in
[3]
California in 2011. Again, all of this alleged conduct took place in California, involving
California parties or residents who had zero connection to Iowa. Therefore, none of the statutory
requirements outlined in Iowa Code Section 803.1 have been met conferring territorial
jurisdiction on the State of Iowa for prosecution of such crimes as alleged against Meade.
Similarly, the counts related to witness tampering and obstructing prosecution involve
conduct that occurred in California. County Attorney Smith makes no allegations that Meade
ever spoke with or communicated with any of the witnesses in the Richter murder case that
Meade was allegedly harassing in retaliation for their testimony. At most, Smith alleges that
Meade published articles that he claims defamed the witnesses and that he published these
articles in retaliation for these witnesses testimony on behalf of the State. Laying aside whether
Smith can criminally charge for defamatory statements or whether the statements can even be
considered defamatory (both of which are taken up later), Smith does not allege that Meade ever
did any of the harassment in Iowa or that he even attempted to make sure the Iowa witnesses
were aware of his publications. Since there in no tangible connection to Iowa in Meades
publications, Iowa and County Attorney Smith lack the requisite territorial jurisdiction to
prosecute Meade for these publications.
II.
THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT ALLEGE FACTS THAT ARE

LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE MEADE WITH THE CRIMES
OUTLINED IN THE TRIAL INFORMATIONAND MINUTESOF
TESTIMONY.
The witnesses tampering and obstructing prosecution charges against Meade are not
legally sufficient and therefore must be dismissed.

As stated above, County Attorney Smith does not allege that Meade attempted to make
sure the witnesses in question ever read or even knew about his publications or that he had the
intent to intimidate, annoy or alarm the witnesses and that he did so without a legitimate purpose.
[4]
See State v. Fratzke, 446 N.W. 781, 783 (Iowa 1989) (To prove harassment in retaliation for
something lawfully done, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant (1)
intended to intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person (2) by a communication in writing or by
telephone (3) without legitimate purpose and (4) in a manner likely to cause the other person
annoyance or alarm).
Meades publications and articles while critical of County Attorney Smith and critical of
the veracity and backgrounds of some of the States witnesses, were all publications designed to
expose or right what Meade saw as an injustice. His purpose was to provide information and
documents to support what he believed was an unjust prosecution and as such, even if Smith
could make out some allegations that Meade had the intent to harass the witnesses in question,
Meade clearly had a legitimate purpose in publishing the articles and therefore there is no legally
sufficiency for the charges against him. Fratzke, 446 N.W. at 785 (holding that an individuals
vitriolic and obscenity-filled letter to a state trooper criticizing his handling of a traffic stop could
not be considering harassment because to hold that writing such a letter had no legitimate
purpose would be the equivalent to finding that the First Amendments promises are not worth
the paper they are written on).2
III. THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE ALLEGE CONDUCT THAT IS CLEARLY
PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND CANNOT BE
CRIMINALIZED MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE STATEMENTS
Because Count 10 of the Trial Information related to obstructing prosecution (Iowa Code
719.3) is without any factual basis to allow Meade to determine what false information he
allegedly provided to law enforcement officials and on what purported dates he allegedly
provided such information, it is impossible to Meade to cogently argue whether such information
is legally sufficient to charge him. As stated in Meades separate Motion for Bill of Particulars,
this lack of factual specificity violates Meades due process rights. See Cole v. Arkansas, 222
U.S. 196, 201 (1948); Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 40 (1896). As written and charged,
the obstructing prosecution lacks legally sufficiency because the charging documents do not note
what false information was provided to law enforcement officials that obstructed a prosecution.
[5]
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY MEADE MAY TURN OUT TO BE

UNTRUE AT A LATER DATE.
Meade has the constitutional right under the First Amendment to publish stories critical of
County Attorney Smiths handling of the Tracey Richter murder prosecution and Smiths use of
witnesses with questionable backgrounds and motives. County Attorney Smiths attempted use
of Iowas Witness Tampering statute (Iowa Code 720.4) and Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa
Code 719.3) against Meade is nothing less than an attempt to silence a critical engaged in
constitutionally protected speech.
As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has NO power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content. Ashcroft v.
America Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002) (emphasis added). Any attempt by
Smith to claim that he is only punishing Meade and his publications because they were false and
therefore harassing of the states witnesses in the State v. Richter, Sac County District Court,
Case No. FECR011900 case is an argument that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. The
U.S. Supreme Court has rejected such arguments saying [t]he First Amendments guarantee of
free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of
relative social costs and benefits. United States v. Stevens, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1585 (2010). Even
knowingly false statements do not necessarily lay outside First Amendment protection because
the very purpose of the First Amendment was to ensure that each person could be his own
watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust government to separate the true from the
false for us. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945); see also Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S.
414, 419 (1988) (The First Amendment is a value-free provision whose protection is not
dependent on the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.
(citations omitted) (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445 (1963)); N.Y. Times Co., 376
[6]
U.S. at 271 (Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently
refused to recognize and exception for any test of truth.).
In fact, when confronted with the issue directly a few years ago, the Supreme Court
decided that false statements were indeed protected by the First Amendment and were not
subject to prosecution merely because they were knowingly false when uttered or published. See
United States v. Alvarez, 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012). Indeed, as the Court made clear in Alvarez, the
constitutionally permissible response by the government or others to false speech is speech that
is true and not statutory or criminal prohibitions on such speech. Id. at 2550.
To the extent that County Attorney Smith will argue that Meades articles and published
statements about the states witnesses are being criminally punished because they are
defamatory, County Attorney Smith fails to take into account decades of jurisprudence
surrounding the neutral reporting privilege and its constitutional protection of publishers and
writers who are critical of public officials, including those persons, in this case witnesses, who
are involved in an event of public or general interest. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323
(1974); N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403
U.S. 29 (1971). Reporters such as Meade must have the leeway to report accusations and
counteraccusations, theories and counter theories when writing about controversies and such
reportage is given full First Amendment protection. Price v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 881 F.2d
1426, 1444 (8th Cir. 1989). Indeed, in looking at how reporters cover and report on
controversies, the Court must not look at the whether the statements were, in fact false or even
damaging, and must not inquire into the authors state of mind when writing or publishing the
statements, but must instead focus on whether the author is merely reporting other sources (even
theories that turn out to be false) in giving a full picture of the controversy. Id. at 1445-46; see
[7]
also Barreca v. Nockolas, 683 N.W. 2d 111, 121 (Iowa 2004) (holding that the speakers attitude
towards the person allegedly being defamed is immaterial and that the only issue is whether the
speaker knowingly or recklessly published a false statement). In other words, the First
Amendment provides protection to actual depictions of accusations and controversies without
regard to their falsity and truth and the actual malice standard of defamation (that is knowledge
that the statements were false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not) becomes
relevant only if the author or publisher fabricates an accusation instead of simply reporting the
accusations and statements of others even if untrue.3 Id. at 1434; see also Price v. Viking
Penguin, Inc.: The Neutral Reporting Privilege and Robust, Wide Open Debate, 75 Minn. L.Rev.
157, 182-85 (1990).
IV.
IOWA CODE 720.4 IS OVERBROAD AND VIOLATES THE FIRST

AMENDED BECAUSE IT CRIMINALIZES ACTS OF PURE SPEECH
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT SPEECH IS TRUTHFUL AND/OR
NOT KNOWINGLY FALSE.
Furthermore, it should be noted that all of the cases delineating the actual malice defamation
standard are civil cases and not criminal cases. Public officials who seek redress for unfair
criticisms of their public or private actions are able to seek that redress in civil courts where they
must not only prove that the statement in question was false but that the defendant knew the
statement was false or was reckless in caring whether the statement was false. The case against
Meade is manifestly different in that the government official being criticized is seeking to use his
prosecutorial powers to punish and silence that criticism. In essence, this criminal prosecution is
an action for criminal defamation. County Attorney Smith is trying to resurrect the Sedition Act
of 1798 which criminalized the publication of seditious writings or those writings that were
false, scandalous, and malicious against the government and government officials with intent
to defame, or bring into contempt or disrepute the government. The Sedition Act of 1798 (An
act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States), Approved July 14, 1798.
Although the Sedition Act was never tested in the courts, N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan makes it
clear the Act could not withstand constitutional scrutiny, Although the Sedition Act was never
tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. 376
U.S. 254, 276 (1964); Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (The Alien and Sedition
Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done with
foreverSuppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by
our Constitution).
3
[8]
County Attorney Smith is attempting to use Iowa Code 720.4 to punish Meades acts
pure speech on the internet because he believes that Meades motives were to harass the states
witnesses in State v. Richter. Smith does not make any allegation that Meade has ever seen or
spoken to the witnesses in question. Smiths allegations are merely that Meade published
defamatory, harassing, online complaints because he was attempting to retaliate against the
states witnesses for their testimony. However, true speech on matters of public concern is
categorically protected regardless of the speakers motives. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64,
67 (1964); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 776 (1986). In fact, the U.S.
Supreme Court has been quite clear that [u]nder well-accepted First Amendment doctrine, a
speakers motivation is entirely irrelevant to the question of constitutional protection. FEC v.
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 468 (2007). Smiths alleged evidence that Meade
said the Ripoff Report is the perfect place to defame somebody because it will always stay up,
and for some reason it winds up ranking on the first page of Google (MOT, p. 3) is therefore
completely irrelevant to whether, in fact, Meade has committed any crime at all. The sole
question is whether Meades speech in question is constitutionally protected speech or not and
that question turns on whether the speech was either truthful or not knowingly reckless.4
To the extent that Iowa Code 720.4 allows punishment for speech on matters of public
concern such as the Tracey Richter murder prosecution without a showing of actual malice as
required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376, U.S. 254 (1964), Iowa Code 720.4 is
overbroad. A law is overbroad if it regulates substantially more speech that the Constitution
4
In fact, under Iowa law recognizes substantial truth as an absolute defense in a defamation
action. Jones v. Palmer Communications, Inc., 440 N.W.2d 884, 891 (Iowa 1989). It is not
required that every detail be truth so long as the gist or sting of the statements in question are
substantially true. Id. The gist or sting is determined by looking at the highlight of the
broadcast, the pertinent angle of it, and not to the items of secondary importance which are
inoffensive details, immaterial to the truth of the defamatory statement. Id.
[9]
allows to be regulated. See City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789,
800 (1984). The overbreadth doctrine is an important tool in constitutional protection because
persons whose expression is constitutionally protected may well refrain from exercising their
rights for fear of criminal sanctions provided by a statute susceptible of application to protected
expression. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 521 (1972).
The U.S. Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that truth is a constitutionally required
defense to claims involving speech and defamation related to matters of public concern,
regardless of the speakers motivations. Garrison, 379 U.S. at 73. In defamation actions, the
plaintiff claiming to have been defamed bears the heavy burden of showing the falsity of the
statements in question. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 475 U.S. at 776-77. Given that the
plaintiff in a civil defamation case must show the falsity of the statement(s) in question, a
prosecutor in a supposed criminal defamation case must do the same and yet Iowa Code
720.4 does not contain this constitutionally proscribed requirement.
Although Iowa does not technically have a criminal defamation statute (and most states
do not), County Attorney Smith is attempting to use Iowa Code 720.4 as just such a criminal
defamation statute. Those state courts that have addressed criminal defamation statutes have
struck down all such statutes that fail to make truth an absolute defense as to matters of public
concern. See Gottschalk v. State, 575 P.2d 289, 292 (Alaska 1978) (The First Amendment to
the United States Constitution requires that truth be an absolute defense regardless of the motive
of the utterer); Farnsworth v. Tribune Co., 263 N.E.2d 408, 410 (Ill. 1969); Dworkin v. L.F.P.,
Inc., 839 P.2d 903, 920 (Wyo. 1992).
[10]
The text of Iowa Code 720.45 contains no provision exempting truthful or not
knowingly reckless speech and as such Iowa Code 720.4 is overbroad because it punishes a
substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. If Meade and others make truthful or
not knowingly reckless statements about witnesses in Iowa and publish those statements on the
internet or elsewhere, the First Amendment absolutely protects such speech but Iowa Code
720.4 recognizes no such protection. As such, this Honorable Court must find Iowa Code
720.4 overbroad.
V.
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PROHIBITS COUNTY ATTORNEY SMITH

FROM USING HIS PROSECUTORIAL POWERS TO PUNISH MEADE FOR
HIS COMMENTS CRITICAL OF SMITH AND SMITHS WITNESSES IN
THE RICHTER MURDER TRIAL.
County Attorney Smith, it seems, has taken umbrage with Meades depictions of his
handling of the Richter investigation and prosecution and has brought to bear his resources and
power as the County Attorney to retaliate against Meade for such depictions. The due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, prohibits Smith from punishing Meade in
retaliation for Meades decision to investigate and publish critical comments on Smiths conduct
as Sac County Attorney. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974).
TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES OR JURORS.

A person who offers any bribe to any person who the offeror
believes has been or may be summoned as a witness or juror in any
judicial or arbitration proceeding, or any legislative hearing, or
who makes any threats toward such person or who forcibly or
fraudulently detains or restrains such person, with the intent to
improperly influence such witness or juror with respect to the
witness' or juror's testimony or decision in such case, or to prevent
such person from testifying or serving in such case, or who, in
retaliation for anything lawfully done by any witness or juror in any
case, harasses such witness or juror, commits an aggravated
misdemeanor.
[11]
A bad faith or vindictive prosecution is generally defined as having been brought without
a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction; however, bad faith and harassing
prosecutions also encompass those prosecutions that are intended to retaliate for or discourage
the exercise of constitutional rights. PHE, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 743 F.Supp. 15
(D.C.D.C. 1990). Although prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not unfettered. Selectivity in
the enforcement of criminal laws or prosecution in retaliation for the exercise of constitutional
rights is subject to constitutional constraints. U.S. v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 125 (1979). The
First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of people to petition the
government for redress of grievances. U.S. Const., Amendment 1.
While it is true that false statements may seem have little value in and of themselves, they
are nonetheless constitutionally protected and the real issue is whether that freedom of speech
which all agree is constitutionally protected can be safeguarded by a rule allowing the imposition
of liability upon a courts determination that a statement is false and maliciously motivated.
New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 300 (1964); see also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,
418 U.S. 323, 418 (1974) (The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in
order to protect speech that matters.). A statute that regulates speech critical of public officials
and which implicitly requires the critic to guarantee the truth of every factual assert made about
public officials and prosecutors for fear of potential criminal liability can result in selfcensorship and discourage public debate because the truth or falsity of some claims cannot be
easily determined and may chill the First Amendment rights of some by causing some potential
complainants to be persuaded not to file a complaint for fear of prosecution under the statute.
New Hampshire v. Allard, 813 A.2d 506, 510 (N.H. 2002). This concern is particularly acute in
the context of allegations of police and government misconductsuch allegations will often pit
[12]
the word of a civilian eyewitness against the testimony of several police officers [or other
government officials]. Id.
Moreover, and even more troubling, these cases create a situation wherein the accused
persons are members of the body responsible for investigating the complaint and filing charges.
Id. Needless to say, debate on public issues and criticism of police officers and prosecutors, just
as with other public officials, is speech at the very center of the constitutionally protected area
of free discussion. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966). Official reprisal for protected
speech offends the Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit the exercise of a lawful right,
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588, n 10 (1998), and the law is well settled that as a
general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual
to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out. Perry v. Sindermann,
408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).
To put it more succinctly, to punish Meade because he did what the law plainly allows
him to docomplain of potential prosecutorial misconduct and questionable witness
testimonyis a due process violation of the most basic sort. U.S. v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372
(1982); see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) A claim of prosecutorial
vindictiveness addresses itself to a constitutional defect in the institution of the prosecution and
is a question of law to be determined by the Court and not a question of fact to be presented to a
jury. Butler, 601 A.2d at 270.
A prosecutorial vindictiveness claim is unrelated to the determination of guilt or
innocence. Id. Claims of prosecutorial vindictiveness address themselves to the concern that the
retaliation against the exercise of a constitutional right should prevent the institution or
prosecution of criminal charges against the defendant. Id. at 271, citing with approval U.S. v.
[13]
Krezdorn, 718 F.2d 1360 (5th Cir. 1983), cert denied, Krezdorn v. U.S. 465 U.S. 1066 (1984).
Retaliatory prosecution cases often include a situation in which the chain of causation is complex
and where a non-prosecuting official influenced the prosecutorial decision but did not himself
make it. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 262 (2006). It is often the non-prosecuting official
who acted in retaliation and who induces the prosecutor to bring charges that would not have
been initiated without his urging. Id.
If Meades facts which demonstrate the probability that an adverse action by the
prosecution or the court has been motivated by vindictiveness in retaliation for the successful
exercise of the defendants legal rights rather than for some other legitimate cause, then a
presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness arises which the Commonwealth must rebut with
evidence of legitimate explanation for the challenged conduct. Commonwealth v. Rocco, 544
A.2d 496, 499 (Pa. Super. 1988) (emphasis in original).
/s Glen S. Downey__________________
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
PROOF OF SERVICE
By:
[14]
_____ U.S. Mail

_____Certified Mail
_____ Fax
_____ Other
Signature:_______________________________________
Date:____________________________________________
E-FILED 2014 DEC 01 8:30 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF IOWA,
Case No. FECR012634

STATES RESISTANCE TO
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY COUNTY ATTORNEY
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant.
COMES NOW, the State of Iowa, through Sac County Attorney Ben
Smith, and in support of its Resistance to Defendants Motion to Disqualify
County Attorney, states the following:
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant has alleged the existence of various conflicts which he believes
necessitates the undersigneds disqualification from the instant proceedings.
However, there exists no conflict that requires the undersigneds disqualification,
and Defendant cites no controlling or applicable authority in support of his
positions.
A. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS
The following facts are contained in the States Minutes of Testimony,
mostly in the Search Warrant Application, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
The States Response to Defendants Motion to Disqualify County Attorney in
State v. Xcentric, 1 which is attached as Exhibit 2, provides a more in-depth
analysis of the issues in this case.
On November 7, 2011, Tracey Richter was convicted of murdering Dustin
Wehde.
1
2
Later, Richters second ex-husband, Michael Roberts, instituted a
State v. Xcentric, Sac County District Court, Case No. CVCV019540 (hereinafter Xcentric)
State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900 (hereinafter Richter)
boycott of Xcentric Ventures (DBA www.ripoffreport.com), a purported consumer

advocacy website, which caused the company to hemorrhage money.
Beginning in December 2011, RipOff Report negotiated and subsequently
executed an employment agreement with the Defendant for the express purpose
of having Defendant author a series of wildly salacious, defamatory stories for
online publication on RipOff Reports website, www.ripoffreport.com (hereinafter
RipOff Report). The purpose of Defendants efforts was to relentlessly
disparage and discredit Roberts with the expectation that the attendant character
assassination would eviscerate the financial impact Roberts boycott of RipOff
Report was having on RipOff Reports advertising revenues. To assist and
amplify the Defendants efforts, the owner of RipOff Report, Ed Magedson,
featured Defendants stories about Roberts on every one of its 1.8 million
webpages and provided Defendant with certain technologies to boost the visibility
of Defendants complaints.
In April 2012, Defendant conspired with Tracey Richter and her family to
provide false information to the undersigneds office in effort to corrupt Richters
conviction and sway Richters pending custody matters. Among other things,
Defendant reported to the undersigneds office that he had information that would
implicate Roberts for Wehdes murder and exonerate Tracey Richter.
The State investigated Defendants claims in the weeks that followed and,
in doing so, learned the following: (1) that all of the information Defendant
provided to the Sac County Attorneys Office and the Sac County Sheriffs Office
was patently false; (2) that Defendant and RipOff Report colluded with Richter
and her family to create and publicize this false information about Roberts to be
used to set aside Richters murder conviction and aid Richters mother, Anna
Richter, in her bid to win full custody of Richter and Roberts children; (3) that
Defendant was a professional reputation hitman who specialized in using the
internet to defame, harass, and intimidate adverse civil litigants and their
witnesses into settling or dismissing their claims and dissuade them from
reporting the ongoing felony crimes being committed by his former employer; and
(4) that within one month of generating Defendants proposed employment

agreement in Jan 2012, RipOff Report was provided with a copy of a deposition
Defendant gave under oath in the spring of 2011 by which they were made
aware of Defendants history of full time employment as a "liar for hire" for a
convicted felon from June 2010 through February 2011. Despite full disclosure in
the Defendants own under oath testimony of his documented dubious past,
Ripoff Report nonetheless hired him to create and publish stories on his website
about the States witnesses and Magedsons perceived enemies. The
undersigned, pursuant to a subpoena, testified to these matters in Richter and
Roberts custody proceedings in May 2012. 3
A few days after this custody hearing, the undersigned asked Defendant
to testify under oath to the information he had provided the undersigneds office
and the Sac County Sheriff, but Defendant refused. After Defendants refusal, the
undersigned informed Defendant of the following: (1) that the State learned all of
Defendants claims were patently false; (2) that the State was aware Defendant
had been communicating extensively with Richters family; and (3) that the State
planned to continue to investigate Defendants fraudulent misrepresentations and
report the same to multiple law enforcement entities.
In June 2012, after learning Dr. Scott Connelly provided the undersigned
with information disproving the allegations Defendant provided to the
undersigned and the Sac County Sheriff in May 2012 concerning Roberts
culpability for Wehdes murder, Defendant confronted Dr. Connelly about his
involvement with the investigation and demanded that he retract the information
he provided to the State concerning Defendant. Dr. Connelly refused to aid
Defendants obstructive efforts and, as a result, would later be the targeted in
Defendants complaints alongside the States witnesses in Richter.
In September 2012, four months after Defendant learned of the States
investigation, Defendant and his employer, RipOff Report, published numerous
hit pieces on millions of webpages accusing the undersigned of prosecutorial
3
Michael Roberts v. Tracey Richter, Buena Vista County District Court, Case No. CDCD002755
misconduct, and the States witnesses in Richter with fraud, perjury, child
molestation, drug abuse, and other nefarious transgressions (hereinafter
complaints).
In one of his first complaints, Defendant predicted he would be
investigated in retaliation for publishing his exposs concerning the States
prosecution of Tracey Richter (i.e., Defendant predicted he would be investigated
four months after he was told he was being investigated). Later, in October 2012,
long before the States investigation became public, Defendant published two
complaints on its website that served to warn the undersigned of possible
reprisal and repercussions if the State continued to investigate Defendant and
RipOff Report.
Defendants complaints concerning the undersigned and the States
witnesses are nonsensical and unworthy of belief on any level. It is not the
substantive content of Defendants complaints which are damaging the States
witnesses beyond repair, but rather the search engine optimization (SEO)
techniques Defendant used to cause his complaints to appear at the top of the
first page of Google-type search results, juxtaposed and associated with
reprehensible criminal conduct.
Defendant and his co-conspirators continued to publish these complaints
through as recently as September 2014.
Because of this systemic and ongoing retaliation, one of the States
witnesses, Dr. John Pitman, a prominent surgeon and Colonel in the U.S. Army
Reserve, lost his surgical practice and over half a million dollars. Most troubling
in all this, however, is that save for the mother of the murder victim, all the States
witnesses who appear in Defendants complaints have stated that they would
not have voluntarily cooperated with the State in its investigation into Wehdes
death back in 2001 and would have avoided testifying against Tracey Richter had
they know their professional and personal lives would be targeted on millions of
webpages as a result.
II. ARGUMENT
A. THE STATES PROSECUTION OF DEFENDANT IS NOT RETALIATORY.
As discussed earlier, the evidence demonstrates that Defendant
purportedly victimized the undersigned four months after Defendant and his coconspirators learned they were targets of an ongoing criminal investigation.
B. THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR RULE THAT REQUIRES THE
UNDERSIGNED BE DISQUALIFIED FROM THIS CASE.
1. THE
TRIAL
INFORMATION
DOES
NOT
IDENTIFY
THE
UNDERSIGNED AS A VICTIM.
Defendant argues that because the undersigned is also a victim of
Defendants systemic and ongoing defamation campaign, the undersigned must
be disqualified from this case. In effort to make his point here, Defendant argues
if the undersigned were the victim of a mass shooting, the undersigned would be
legally disqualified from prosecuting the shooter. Defendants appalling analogy
fails for a number of reasons.
There is no rule that would prevent the undersigned from prosecuting the
shooter in Defendants above-scenario. Moreover, comparing murder or
attempted murder to Defendants complaints is like comparing apples to
monkey wrenches. In an analogy that accurately reflects the facts and
circumstances of this case, the undersigned would have been prosecuting the
shooter for a different Class A Felony at the time of the drive-by shooting.
Furthermore, because Defendants complaints criticized the Assistant
Attorney General who aided in Richters prosecution, as well as all prosecutors in
Iowa, by Defendants own argument, no prosecutor in the State of Iowa could
prosecute Defendant in this case.
The
Defendant
also
alleged
the
undersigned
previously
stated
Defendants attacks were emotionally difficult for, and almost broke, the
undersigned. These statements were purposefully taken from an entirely different

part of the undersigneds hour-long interview and had nothing to do with
Defendants complaints. The YouTube video accessed by the hyperlink is
approximately three minutes long, but is clearly spliced at the 1:58 minute mark.
Defendants co-conspirator Ed Magedson made this same argument to Judge
Bice in October 2012 in Xcentric.
2. THE UNDERSIGNED IS NOT LIKELY TO BE A NECESSARY
WITNESS AT DEFENDANTS TRIAL.
A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to
be a necessary witness. IOWA R. CIV. P. 32:3.7.
Rule 32:3.7 is not applicable as the undersigned is not likely to be a
necessary witness at Defendants trial. The undersigned is not listed in the Trial
Information as a witness and the undersigned has no first-hand knowledge of any
of the conduct or events contained in the Minutes of Testimony. Furthermore, as
the attorney for the State of Iowa, it is difficult to envision any scenario where
testimony by the undersigned and the State (assumedly, the States witnesses)
would prove to be in substantial conflict. Id.
The e-mails the Defendant sent to the undersigned can be introduced into
evidence through other witnesses, such as those listed in the Trial Information as
the custodian of records for Sac Countys Internet Service Provider (ISP) or
through the other persons named in the Trial Information who Defendant copied
on the same e-mails.
3. THE FACT THE UNDERSIGNED MADE THE APPLICATION FOR A
SEARCH WARRANT IN A RELATED CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE
THAT
THE
UNDERSIGNED
BE
DISQUALIFIED
FROM
PROSECUTING DEFENDANT.
Defendant argues because the undersigned made the application for a
search warrant for the residences of one of his co-conspirators, the undersigned
must be disqualified from prosecuting Defendant. In support of this argument,

Defendant cites two cases from the Missouri Court of Appeals.
The undersigned was unable to obtain a copy of the Missouri Court of
Appeals decision in State v. Whitworth, the first Missouri Court of Appeals case
Defendant cited in support of his position here. However, on appeal to the
Missouri Supreme Court, the Court held that testimony by an assistant
prosecutor who did not participate in defendants prosecution was not improper.
State v. Whitworth, 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 4129 (Mo. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 1985);
State v. Whitworth, 704 S.W.2d 230 (Mo. 1986).
Contrary to Defendants arguments in his Brief, the other case cited by
Defendant, State v. Nicholson, a case decided by the Missouri Court of Appeals
in 1928, did not hold that a prosecutor who made an application for a search
warrant had to be disqualified from prosecuting the related criminal case. State v.
Nicholson, 7 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Mo. App. 1928). In fact, the Court in Nicholson did
not even cite the prosecutors role as the affiant for the search warrant as one of
the reasons the prosecutor should be disqualified. Nicholson at 380.
In State v. Fitz, the Iowa Supreme Court made it clear that a prosecutor
need not withdraw if he is called as a defense witness. State v. Fitz, 265 N.W.2d
896, 901 (Iowa 1978)
Lastly, contrary to Defendants assertions, the search warrant application
does not contain evidence; the search warrant application refers to evidence
already in existence.
4. THE
UNDERSIGNED
DOES
NOT
HAVE
PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIP WITH STATES WITNESS MICHAEL ROBERTS.

Defendant alleges the undersigned has a personal relationship with
States witness Michael Roberts and, because Roberts and Defendants
employer / benefactor, Ed Magedson, are adverse to one another, the
undersigned must be disqualified from this case.
The undersigneds relationship with Roberts is no greater than those the

undersigned has with other victims and witnesses in this and other cases.
Defendants assertion that the undersigned personally vouched for Roberts
fitness to receive a personal loan, which is based on nothing more than
innuendo and deceptive, out-of-context excerpts from Roberts testimony, is
patently false. The fact Defendants counsel decided to make this unequivocal
accusation based on such little evidence is disappointing, but not quite as
disappointing as counsels decision to involve the undersigneds wife and
recently deceased Grandmother in this matter.
Even if the undersigned and Roberts were best friends (or lovers as
Defendant asserts on millions of webpages), the Defendant would still not be
able to cite any authority that would require the undersigned to be disqualified in
this case.
5. THE STATES DECISION NOT TO SEAL A SEARCH WARRANT
DOES
NOT
DISQUALIFY
THE
UNDERSIGNED
FROM
PROSECUTING DEFENDANT.
Defendant argues the States decision not to seal a search warrant
application, which Defendant has described as bizarre and rambling and
irrelevant, somehow demonstrates a conflict necessitating the undersigneds
disqualification from this case.
The search warrant application was never sealed and, therefore, could not
have been unsealed. Contrary to Defendants assertions, sealing a search
warrant application is the exception, not the norm. Also, the bulk of the States
investigation was completed before the search warrant application was
presented to the magistrate for approval.
C. THE STATES PROSECUTION OF DEFENDANT IS NECESSARY TO
PROTECT WITNESSES AND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR JUDICIAL
SYSTEM.
Defendant alleges the undersigned is prosecuting Defendant in retaliation

for Defendants criticism of the undersigneds prosecutorial efforts in State v.
Richter, and that the States prosecution of Defendant is not in the best interests
of Sac County or Iowas citizens.
Defendants theories related to the events and circumstances surrounding
the States prosecution of Tracey Richter are patently absurd. However, as
discussed above and in greater detail in the States Resistance to Defendants
Motion to Dismiss, which is incorporated herein by reference, Defendants
investigative journalism is really a veiled effort to destroy the personal and
professional lives of the States witnesses by linking or (meta)-tagging his
complaints, more specifically, the witnesses names, family members, and
businesses contained in his complaints, to unspeakable criminal acts, solely to
expose them to contempt, ridicule, and embarrassment. The technical report
provided by Digital Forensic Expert Shawn Richeson, which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 3, further explains Defendants use of the internet to harass the States
witnesses as described above.
The Defendants actions are compounded and made ever more egregious
by the attendant specter that his digital age version of witness and jury tampering
will establish a precedent to be used in other criminal prosecutions and thus
threaten to irreparably damage our criminal justice system. The undersigned
would be derelict in his duties as the chief law enforcement officer for Sac County
if he allowed Defendants continued assault on the States witnesses and our
judicial system to go unchecked.
D. DEFENDANTS EFFORTS TO HAVE THE UNDERSIGNED DISQUALIFIED
FROM THIS CASE MIRROR THOSE MADE BY HIS CO-CONSPIRATORS
IN OTHER RELATED MATTERS BEFORE THE SAC COUNTY DISTRICT
COURT.
It is important to note that two of Defendants co-conspirators, Tracey
Richter and Ed Magedson, made almost identical arguments in effort to quash
and / or enjoin the undersigneds investigation and have the undersigned
9
removed from their cases. Judge Wilke denied Richters motion to disqualify the
undersigned in her post-conviction relief case. 4 The State dismissed its action in
Xcentric before the Court ruled on an almost identical motion filed by Magedson.
A court mustbe vigilant to thwart any misuse of a motion to disqualify
for strategic reasons. Bottoms v. Stapleton, 706 N.W.2d 411, 415 (Iowa 2005).
III. CONCLUSION
The evidence clearly shows Defendant, four months after he was told he
was being investigated, predicted he would be investigated. Criminals do not get
to decide who investigates and / or prosecutes them, which is what Defendant is
attempting to do in this case.
When a persons conduct gives an officer probable cause to believe that
[he] is guilty of a crime, that person does not taint a proper arrest by
contemporaneously shouting police officers are corrupt. Mesa v. Prejean, 543
F.3d 264, 273 (5th Cir. 2008).
Defendant has cited no controlling authorities for his positions. Rules
32:1.7 and 32:3.7 are wholly inapplicable to Defendants claims. Defendant has
merely raised irrelevant and unsupportable objections, some of which are based
on patent falsehoods and / or intentional misrepresentations, in effort to get the
undersigned removed from his case.
WHEREFORE, for the all the foregoing reasons, the State respectfully
requests that the Court deny Defendants Motion in its entirety and order such
other relief the Court deems just and equitable in the premises.
Richter v. State, Sac County District Court, Case No. PCCV019511
10
__________________________
Benjamin John Smith
Sac County Attorney
Sac City IA 50583
Telephone: 712-662-4791
11

(Magistrate Division)
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
FOR A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE
RESIDENCE AT 4221155TH STREET,
SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION
URBANDALE, IOWA 50323

COMES NOW, the State of Iowa, through Sac County Attorney (SCA) Ben Smith, and being
duly sworn on oath, states the following:
That at 4221 155TH STREET, URBANDALE, IOWA 50323, the residence of ANNA
RICHTER, at which there are computers and other electronic storage devices that contain
information I documents (digital media) all of which are identified in Attachments A and B to
this Search Warrant Application and I or were used to facilitate I commit the crimes listed in
the Affidavit.
That said property I information is relevant and material as evidence in a criminal prosecution. That the facts establishing the foregoing ground(s) for issuance of a search warrant are
as set forth in the affidavit and attachments, which, by this reference, are made by part of
this Search Warrant Application.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned asks that a S~;;:l:l
N SMITH
SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT
1
exhibitsticker.com
Subscribed and sworn to before me July i;014.

SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION:

AFFIDAVIT
COMES NOW, Sac County Attorney (SCA) Ben Smith, and being duly sworn on oath,
states the following:
Your applicant has been the elected prosecutor in Sac County, Iowa, for close to four years.
The Iowa Supreme Court has found that the County Attorney can apply for a search
warrant. State v. Jensen, 189 N.W.2d 919 (1971) Three years prior, your applicant worked
for the Iowa Attorney General's Office as an Assistant Attorney General (AAG) assigned to
represent the State of Iowa's Child Support Recovery Unit. In the last three years, your
applicant has drafted numerous search warrants, and has conducted numerous county
attorney investigations per Rule 2.5(6), including, two "cold case" homicide I murder
investigations, both of which resulted in arrests being made. The investigation into these
matters began in April 2012, when your affiant was first contacted by Laguna Beach,
California, resident DARREN MITCHELL MEADE (DOB: January 3, 1967).
During this investigation, your applicant listened to hundreds of hours of recorded phone
conversations between TRACEY RICHTER and her friends and family, which made from
either the Sac County Jail in Sac City, Iowa, or the Iowa Women's Prison in Mitchellville,
Iowa, as well as audio recordings of conversations between TRACEY RICHTER and her
family and friends during their prison visits. Additionally, your applicant has issued over 100
Rule 2.5(6} County Attorney Investigatory Subpoenas Duces Tecum in furtherance of this
investigation and has obtained and reviewed thousands of documents, and has spoken with
numerous witnesses. In total, your applicant has spent well over 1 ,500 hours investigating I
working on this case.
The facts alleged and information contained in this affidavit come from your affiants
personal observations, training, experience, and research, as well as the same from other
law enforcement officials I investigators and licensed private investigators. The facts alleged
and information contained herein are made and set forth to the best of my ability with the
information available to me at the time. Your applicant has given his best efforts to ensure
the information contained in this application is accurate and reliable, however, considering
the incredible complexities and the general subject matter of the case, it is possible for there
to be inadvertent, factual inaccuracies. Lastly, this affidavit is intended to show merely that
there is sufficient probable cause for the requested warrant and DOES NOT set forth all of
my knowledge about this matter.
Your applicant is actively investigating the following crimes: Ongoing Criminal Conduct, a
Class "B" Felony {IOWA CODE 706A.2); Conspiracy, a Class "D" Felony (IOWA CODE
706.1); Solicitation, a Class "D" Felony; Extortion (IOWA CODE 705.1), a Class "D" Felony
(IOWA CODE 711.4); and Witness Tampering, an Aggravated Misdemeanor (IOWA CODE
720.4), Facilitation of A Criminal Network By Attempting To Induce A Witness" commits a
Class "B" Felony. IOWA CODE 706A.2 (2013)
I make this affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant for the items and
information set forth in Attachments A and B to this Search Warrant Application.
IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS AS OUTLINED IN THIS
AFFIDAVIT: Where possible, the events described herein are laid out in strict chronological
order. However, due to the complexity of the case, and the number of different limeline
arcs, in some instances, a series of related events that extend over long periods of lime are
nested together so as to improve comprehension and readability; thereafter, the normal
timeline will resume. Consequently, the last incident described in a nested event may be for
a dale that comes after the next incident described in the generaltimeline.
Unless specifically slated otherwise, all conversations referenced herein, to which TRACEY
RICHTER is a party, were initiated by TRACEY RICHTER from a prison phone at the Iowa
women's prison in Mitchellville, Iowa.
TRACEY RICHTER and Dr. John Pitman were married on or around August 14, 1988. On
February 1, 1990, TRACEY RICHTER (then Tracey Pitman) gave birth to Dr. John Pitman's
son, BERT PITMAN. On or around June 1992 not long after Dr. John Pitman believed
TRACEY RICHTER tried to kill him for the second lime, the two separated. Shortly after
their separation, TRACEY RICHTER filed for divorce from Dr. John Pitman. Not long into
their divorce proceedings, TRACEY RICHTER, accused Dr. John Pitman of molesting their
son, BERT PITMAN. Soon after TRACEY RICHTER made this accusation, flyers were
placed on most of the cars at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, the hospital Dr. John Pitman
was working for at the lime, which slated that Dr. John Pitman had been found to be a child
molester. TRACEY RICHTER later said she did not place the flyers on the car, but the
person who did was someone with whom she was close.
TRACEY RICHTER and Dr. John Pitman's divorce proceedings lasted close to six years.
During the proceedings, Dr. John Pitman was able to prove, among many other things, that
a signature purporting to be his that was affixed to an insurance policy taken out on his life
was forged. Later in these proceedings it was proven that TRACEY RICHTER had falsely
accused Dr. John Pitman of molesting BERT PITMAN. Despite the foregoing, when the
divorce I custody matters were finalized, the two stipulated that they would split joint legal
custody, that TRACEY RICHTER would be the primary physical caretaker, and that Dr.
John Pitman would get liberal visitation rights.
TRACEY RICHTER and Michael Roberts were married in Australia in 1996. Michael
Roberts, an Australian, moved to the United States (Chicago, Illinois) after he married
TRACEY RICHTER. Two children, N.R. and M.R., were born to their marriage. N.R. and
M.R. are dual citizens of the United States and Australia.
In 1998, TRACEY RICHTER, Michael Roberts, BERT PITMAN, and N.R. moved from
Chicago, Illinois, to Early, Iowa (Sac County).
In 2000, TRACEY RICHTER again accused Dr. John Pitman of molesting BERT PITMAN.
Dr. John Pitman responded by asking the courts for full custody of BERT PITMAN.
Following a thorough investigation, it was determined that TRACEY RICHTER's new sex
abuse allegation against Dr. John Pitman was unfounded, possibly fabricated.
On December 13, 2001, days before the custody modification proceedings were set to
begin, TRACEY RICHTER shot and killed 20-year-old Dustin Wehde after she was
allegedly attacked in her home by Dustin Wehde and an unknown second intruder who
escaped (although, when law enforcement first arrived at the scene, TRACEY RICHTER
told them there had been three intruders).
The evidence recovered at the scene indicated TRACEY RICHTER, using two different
pistols, fired eleven shots at Dustin Wehde, nine of which struck him. The autopsy of Dustin
Wehde's body revealed three of these nine shots entered through the back of his head in a
tightly grouped pattern. A blood spatter expert would later testify the last of the three shots
fired into the back of Dustin Wehde's head was fired fifteen minutes after the first two while
his head was resting on the ground. Hours after this incident, law enforcement found a pink
spiral notebook in Dustin Wehde's car. The notebook contained what appeared to be a
journal or diary in Dustin Wehde's handwriting, in which Dustin Wehde had written that he
was hired by Dr. John Pitman and Dr. John Pitman's divorce I custody attorney, Stephen
Komie, to stalk, harass, and ultimately murder TRACEY RICHTER, BERT PITMAN, as well
as other bits of information that suggested Dr. John Pitman was ultimately responsible for
this (alleged) home invasion I attempt on TRACEY RICHTER's life. Additionally, notebook
contained a series of numbers.
The few law enforcement officials who knew of the notebook's existence, decided not to
disclose its existence to anyone, including TRACEY RICHTER.
About two months after she shot and killed Dustin Wehde, TRACEY RICHTER told her
then-friend, Mary Higgins, that law enforcement had told her (TRACEY RICHTER) it found a
notebook in Dustin Wehde's car that proved Dr. John Pitman was behind the attack, and
that Dr. John Pitman was going to be arrested soon.
Dr. John Pitman was never arrested, and law enforcement did not publicly disclose the
notebook's existence until after TRACEY RICHTER was arrested for murdering Dustin
Wehde. However, as discussed below, in the ten years between Dustin Wehde's murder
and TRACEY RICHTER's arrest for his murder, TRACEY RICHTER would openly discuss
the notebook and its contents.
On February 13, 2002, TRACEY RICHTER sent a letter to Lieutenant Dennis Cessford, the
Sac County Sheriffs Deputy ("L T Cessford") assigned to investigate Dustin Wehde's death.
In this letter, TRACEY RICHTER asked the Deputy whether law enforcement had
interviewed Dr. John Pitman, and provided a list of reasons why TRACEY RICHTER
believed Dr. John Pitman and his attorney, Stephen Komie, could be responsible for the
alleged home invasion. TRACEY RICHTER also told the Deputy that she would be able to
identify the alleged second intruder if shown his picture.
On February 15, 2002, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in an e-mail to LT Cessford:
[Dr. John Pitman] may be required to come in for a deposition [in their custody proceedings]
in the near future. If we can get him in, we will let you know. If you want to speak in
confidence to my attorney, and give her some questions to ask [Dr. John Pitman], we will. I
doubt he will agree to an interview. [Dr. John Pitman] has not contacted [BERT PITMAN
since the alleged home invasion], which is strange.
On February 21, 2002, TRACEY RICHTER REFUSED to assist investigators in developing
a composite sketch of the second individual she alleged had invaded her home with Dustin
Wehde on December 13, 2011, and attacked her.
On March 20, 2002, TRACEY RICHTER asked LT Cessford where law enforcement had
any information that connected Dr. John Pitman to Dustin Wehde.
On June 9, 2002, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in a letter to LT Cessford: "Are
you in a position to reveal to us the nature of the link between Steven Komie and the
Wehde household?
On November 28, 2002, Dustin Wehde's father, Brett Wehde, committed suicide near his
son's (Dustin Wehde) In a note he left behind, Brett Wehde wrote that his "heart was
broken" on [December 13, 2001], the day TRACEY RICHTER shot and killed Dustin
Wehde, and that [he cried] every day since [December 13, 2001].
On December 30, 2002, TRACEY RICHTER wrote a letter to Mona Wehde (Dustin
Wehde's mother and Brett Wehde's wife) wherein TRACEY RICHTER accused Mona
Wehde of conspiring with Dr. John Pitman to have Dustin Wehde attack her, and chastised
Mona Wehde for being a horrible wife to her late husband,
On October 13, 2003, Dustin Wehde's Estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against
TRACEY RICHTER. Wehde Estate v. Tracey [Richter]. Sac County District Court, Case No.
LACV018486.
On April 23, 2004, Michael Roberts filed for divorce from TRACEY RICHTER. Michael
Roberts v. Tracey [Roberts]. Buena Vista County District Court, Case No. CDCD002755.
TRACEY RICHTER was given temporary custody of their children, N.R. and M.R. Much like
TRACEY RICHTER's divorce with Dr. John Pitman, the custody I divorce proceedings that
followed Michael Roberts and TRACEY RICHTER's separation were contentious and
protracted.
On May 18, 2004, TRACEY RICHTER came into the Sac County Sheriff's Office, and asked
to speak with Sac County Sheriff Ken McClure. The following is Sheriff Ken McClure's
report regarding this incident:
Tracey [Richter] told me she had some information that she felt I needed to know. Tracey
[Richter] told me that her husband, Michael Roberts, talks in his sleep, and while he talks in
his sleep, Tracey is able to ask him questions. TRACEY RICHTER told me that on numerous
occasions, Michael would talk about a journal and how this journal would "cover his ass."
TRACEY RICHTER also said that Michael Roberts told her [in his sleep] that the contents of
this journal concerned Tracey [Richter's] ex-husband John Pittman. When talking about the
Journal, Tracey [Richter] would cry and talk about for short time, and then she would start
talking about something else. Tracey [Richter] said that she asked Michael about where this
journal was because she had never seen it. Tracey [Richter] told me that [Michael Roberts]
told her while he was sleeping that last time he saw the Journal, Dustin had it. On another
occasion, Tracey [Richter] said that [Michael Roberts] was talking in his sleep about how in
case they got caught, [the journal] would cover him. Tracey [Richter] told me that when she
asked who these people were, Michael became coherent and woke up. Tracey [Richter] said
that she had even on one occasion awakened her son BERT [PITMAN], and had him come
into the bedroom and listen to Michael Roberts talking in his sleep about this journal .. Tracey
[Richter] said she had never seen this journal.
On May 19, 2004, TRACEY RICHTER left the following in a voicemail to one of Michael
Roberts's co-workers:
I mean if [Michael Roberts] wants to be with someone else just say he wants to be with
someone else, but don't try to turn me (TRACEY RICHTER) into a monster by saying that
I'm trying to kill him and all of this horrible ridiculous stuff. I am now convinced that he did
have something to do with the attack and I am convinced based on his behavior ... that he
absolutely refuses to pay any child support ... he refuses to pay the maintenance that he
agreed to pay me ... the fact that he is making up these horrendous, horrible stories about me
trying to kill him ... the fact that he is, you know, doing sneaky stuff with [their business] to
protect his assets ... I don't know who he is and I do now believe, I just met with the sheriff um
last week, I do believe now with all of my heart that he had something to do with the attack
on me, because he has become a complete stranger to me, you know, if he doesn't want to
be with me just say that he's in love with someone else, he wants to start a new life ... but
don't make up these ridiculous stories about me ... and I am now convinced and that is the
tool that I will be using against him because I will use his own actions against him, I don't
have to make stuff up about him, I will make sure that because of everything that he has
done ... that he pays for his crimes ... he pays for the attack on me and that he ultimately will
go to jail and that the rest of his life will be spent in jail as the result of trying to have me
killed ... he has proved himself to be mentally unstable person, he has proved himself to be a
stranger, and I am now convinced that he did have something to do with it and I will make
sure if there is anything in my power that's honest and truthful, you know, to make sure, I'm
not going to lie or anything like that, but to make sure that he does pay for his sins and that
he suffers the consequences of his actions ... you know, unless he were all of a sudden to
have a change of heart and apologize and say that all of this stuff that he has been doing
that he's been behaving and doesn't know what it is ... he's a stranger to me, and that he's a
monster and that. .. he's a danger and a menace to society to have him out there ... that also
means letting everyone in (inaudible) know that he was involved in the attack.
On March 2, 2005, because Dustin Wehde's Estate ran out of money to take the case to
trial, and because TRACEY RICHTER was judgment proof, the Dustin Wehde's Estate
moved to dismiss its wrongful death case against TRACEY RICHTER.
On March 2, 2005, the same day the civil wrongful death lawsuit against her had been
dismissed, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in an e-mail to Sac County Sheriff Ken
McClure:
I heard from one of our experts that a notebook of Dustin's was found that contained notes
about me. Is there any chance of my attorney getting a copy. It may be relevant to our
divorce case. If you are worried that confidential information might get released, we can
agree to have the Judge review the item in chambers and decide if it is related.
On March 3, 2005, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in an e-mail to Sac County
Sheriff Ken McClure: "I just got of the phone with [my civil attorney] who told me that Dustin
Wehde's notebook contained details about the Dentist in Chicago. I never told anyone
about that."
On March 10, 2005, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in an e-mail to Sac County
Sheriff Ken McClure:
My lawyer in Des Moines told me that one of the DCI reports reported a daily log of
Dustin's on an inventory list. When he inquired about it, he was told that it contained
"disturbing personal information about me" he also was told it included "gibberish?" I was
particularity upset that I had not been told about this previously. Was Dustin being paid to
watch me and track my activities? If so, by, whom? Or was Dustin obsessed with me and
watching me tor personal reasons? Forgive m for being upset, but finding out that you
were being stalked and that you were not told about it is kind of weird. Considering the
events of [December 13, 2011], I kind of think that might be related.
On March 11, 2005, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in an e-mail to Sheriff Ken
McClure:
I met with Mary Higgins today. She spoke with Robin from Crossroads, who told her that
the notebook was found by [Mona Wehde] in their house NOT in the car as my attorney
stated. She also stated that [Mona Wehde] showed it to Robin and [Michael Roberts] before
turning it in. Supposedly it contained numbers in addition to information relating to my son
[BERT PITMAN] and myself. Is there any evidence to suggest the conspired together and
used Dustin? They would have known Mike would be a suspect, so Dustin would
eventually have to take the fall so Mike would be off the hook. I wouldn't put it past
[Michael Roberts] using both of them so he would be off the hook.
On March 13, 2005, TRACEY RICHTER sent the following in a facsimile to Sheriff Ken
McClure:
I reviewed the report and it clearly states the daily log of Dustin's was found in the car and
taken to DCI. If this is true, how did [Mona Wehde] and Robyn spend days going through
Dustin's notebook that was found in his home??? Are there 2? Did [Mona Wehde] ever turn
hers [in to] the DCI or did she bury it because it incriminated Dustin Wehde?
On March 15, 2005, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in an e-mail to Sheriff Ken
McClure: "The second notebook that Mona found contained a bunch of numbers
according to Robin at Crossroads. Could those numbers be bank account numbers?
Passwords? Routing numbers? PIN's?"
On July 18, 2005, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in facsimile to Sheriff Ken
McClure and then-Sac County Attorney Earl Hardisty: "I sincerely hope you really don't
believe there wasn't a second man because then you won't look for him and if you won't
look for him you can't find him. You have to find him, he has all the answers."
In 2008, the Court awarded TRACEY RICHTER full custody of N.R. and M.R., and Michael
Roberts was given liberal visitation rights. Immediately following TRACEY RICHTER and
Michael Roberts' separation in 2004, TRACEY RICHTER, her family, and her friends began
a coordinated effort to publicly accuse Michael Roberts of planning the (alleged) home
invasion I being criminally responsible for Dustin Wehde's death, in effort to give TRACEY
RICHTER an advantage over Michael Roberts in the couple's pending divorce I custody
proceedings.
On December 4, 2007, TRACEY RICHTER and Michael Roberts received an interlocutory
divorce. In 2008, Michael Roberts married Dr. Heidi Johanna Forsbacka (aka Heidi
Roberts).
Michael Roberts has alleged that TRACEY RICHTER attempted to kill him three times in
the four years that followed their separation. In fact, the State of Iowa's victim's
compensation program reimbursed Michael Roberts for damages he sustained as a result
of one of these three alleged attempts.
On or around October 22, 2007, during one of their numerous hearings in Buena Vista
County District Court Case No. CDCD002755, TRACEY RICHTER entered a letter into
evidence which she testified was sent to her by the Consulate General of Finland in Los
Angeles. The letter said that the Consulate General of Finland had forwarded documents
sent to it by TRACEY RICHTER concerning the legality of Michael Roberts' marriage to Dr.
Heidi Forsbacka (citizen of Finland). The letter further stated that "falsifying documents and
committing fraud to obtain a Finnish visa or commit bigamy is a serious criminal offense for
both Mr. Roberts and Dr. Forsbacka." TRACEY RICHTER testified at this hearing that this
letter was genuine and that she received it in the mail or by fax.
On November 8, 2007, the real Consulate General of Finland provided a letter stating that
the above-mentioned letter purporting to be from the Consulate General of Finland, which
TRACEY RICHTER entered into evidence, was fraudulent.
On January 31, 2008, the Court entered its final order in Michael Roberts and TRACEY
RICHTER's custody I child support case (a year or two prior, the Court entered an order
legally divorcing the two). Although the Court awarded TRACEY RICHTER primary custody
of N.R. and M.R., the Court stated the following in its findings:
Tracey is very deviceful; She usually has a plan or scheme to effect a purpose. The following
incidents establish crafty schemes by Tracey: (a) One week after Michael filed the petition for
dissolution of marriage, Tracey filed a petition for relief from domestic abuse. As a result of
the filing of this petition, a temporary protective order was entered. No evidentiary hearing
was ever held to establish that Michael committed domestic abuse assault, as asserted by
Tracey. The timing of the petition for relief from domestic abuse, filed by Tracey, and her
failure to proceed to final hearing on her petition, leads the Court to believe that Tracey used
this process in an attempt to gain advantage over Michael on the custodial issue; (b) Tracey
has made attempts to establish that Michael has committed child abuse. Michael admits that
he had in the past hit Noah on the buttocks with a light stick. He admits that this was
inappropriate. This was reported to DHS and resulted in an unfounded report. At the trial on
the custodial matter, Tracey did not contend that this activity constituted child abuse. In fact,
she conceded that it was not child abuse. later, Tracey made vigorous attempts to obtain a
founded report as a result of this incident; (c) All three children were attending St. Mary's
School. Noah had a bruise on his back. Bert went to Noah's teacher and told her about the
bruise on Noah's back. The teacher is a mandatory reporter, and a report was made to the
Department of Human Services. An investigation was conducted. Noah informed both the
teacher and the caseworker for the Department of Human Services that the mark on his back
was the result of a bicycle accident. This resulted in an unfounded report. Tracey, instead of
making a report of child abuse on Noah, as a result of the bruise on his back, involves her
son Bert and has him bring this to the attention of Noah's teacher. Tracey knew this would
result in an investigation being conducted. It is quite apparent Tracey knew all along the
source of Noah's injury; (d) When Tracey was made aware that Michael had a favorable
report regarding custody from Bethany Christian Services, she made complaints to Bethany
personnel to attempt to change the report. The involvement with Bethany was made by
Michael to determine his capabilities of being a custodial parent. It was not his intent that
Tracey be involved in the preparation of the report, but by complaining she convinced other
personnel of Bethany that she should be interviewed as well as her supporters.
On or around July 17, 2008, TRACEY RICHTER alleged there was a website that contained
a nude image of TRACEY RICHTER and that Michael Roberts and or his wife, Dr. Heidi
Forsbacka was responsible. The image was of a nude female with TRACEY RICHTER's
face photo shopped on top of the picture of the nude female. II was later determined that
TRACEY RICHTER used Michael Roberts' checking account to create the website on which
this photo shopped image was published. Although no criminal charges (identity theft) were
filed against TRACEY RICHTER, following a forensic examination of her computer that law
enforcement seized from her apartment in May 2009, pursuant to a search warrant, law
enforcement found the original digital image was used to create the nude photo shopped
image of TRACEY RICHTER that was published on the website she
In the middle of 2008, TRACEY RICHTER and her and Michael Roberts' children, N.R. and
M.R. moved to Omaha, Nebraska. Shortly thereafter, Michael Roberts moved to nearby
Papillion, Nebraska, to be close to his children.
On December 29, 2008, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in an e-mail to Iowa
Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) Special Agent (SA) Trent Vileta (SA Vilela):
"[Michael Roberts]told me about a premonition from God that would solve all our problems.
He said that Mona would find proof that John Pitman tried to kill me and this would allow
both Mona and Mike to sue John Pitman."
On January 27, 2009, Michael Roberts received a temporary restraining order against
TRACEY RICHTER from the Sarpy County District Court. On January 29, 2009, Michael
Roberts was actively participating in the Stale of Nebraska's Victims of Domestic
10
Abuse Address Confidentiality Program, which, among other things, provided him with a
Slate Government mailing address, which allowed him to keep his residential address a
secret.
On February 6, 2009, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in an e-mail to DCI SA Vileta:
Once when [Michael Roberts] was working with [Dustin Wehde] and supposedly
"encouraging" him to write, he had him write about being a hitman. Oh, great! That's a really
good idea. We now know that [Michael Roberts] knew [Dustin Wehde] was violent. [Michael
Roberts's admits it. Let's encourage him to fantasize about killing for hire. Yes, let's
glamourize unthinkable behavior.
On April19, 2010, TRACEY RICHTER was convicted of felony fraud in the Douglas County
District Court, Omaha Nebraska. Stale v. Richter, Douglas County (Omaha, Nebraska)
District Court Case No. CR 0913186.
On or around July 27, 2010, TRACEY RICHTER was convicted of felony perjury in the Clay
County District Court in Iowa. Slate v. Richter, Clay County District Court Case No.
FECR014399
Sometime in 2010, TRACEY RICHTER reported to the FBI that Michael Roberts had once
been a close personal friend and associate of alleged international super cyber criminal
JULIAN ASSANGE, the founder of Wikileaks.org, and that the two had engaged in all sorts
of nefarious conduct.
On June 7, 2011, the FBI interviewed TRACEY RICHTER about her allegations concerning
Michael Roberts' supposed relationship with JULIAN ASSANGE. During the interview,
TRACEY RICHTER began discussing the December 13, 2011, (alleged) home invasion and
shooting death of Dustin Wehde. Specifically, TRACEY RICHTER told the FBI SA that she
had a friend in Early, Iowa, named Mary Higgins. TRACEY RICHTER said that Mary
Higgins and TRACEY RICHTER had a conversation about Dustin Wehde's attack on
TRACEY RICHTER some lime after the attack. TRACEY RICHTER said that Mary Higgins
told her somebody involved in the investigation told her (Mary Higgins) that the police found
a "diary or journal" during their investigation, which contained personal information
regarding TRACEY RICHTER. TRACEY RICHTER said Mary Higgins did not say who it
was involved in the investigation who told her (Mary Higgins) this information.
On July 14, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER again told an FBI SA that Mary Higgins was told by
somebody associated with the aforementioned investigation that the police found a journal,
and that the journal contained personal information about TRACEY RICHTER.
On July 27, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER was arrested for the December 13, 2001, murder of
20-year-old Dustin Wehde. State v. Richter, Sac County District Court Case No.
11
FECR011900.
The Sac County Sheriffs criminal complaint and arrest warrant alleged TRACEY RICHTER
had knowledge of a piece of evidence that was found in Dustin Wehde's car following the
murder I alleged home invasion, the existence of which was never publicly disclosed by law
enforcement. The complaint further alleged the following:
[TRACEY RICHTER's] communications with law enforcement and other individuals since the
murder strongly indicates [TRACEY RICHTER] not only had knowledge this piece of
evidence existed, but that she manufactured and planted the same in Wehde's vehicle after
the murder to make it appear as if Wehde was a home invader. Specifically, and most
recently, [TRACEY RICHTER] discussed this piece of evidence in detail with the FBI.
Additionally, a witness has recently come forward and has [said thai TRACEY RICHTER]
described this piece of evidence to the witness in early 2002.
The day TRACEY RICHTER was arrested, TRACEY RICHTER's mother, ANNA RICHTER,
said the following in a message she left on the Sac County Attorney's Office answering
machine: "You have destroyed a family," and "I have nothing left to lose."
In the days that followed TRACEY RICHTER's arrest for Dustin Wehde's murder on July 27,
2011, while in the Douglas County Jail, TRACEY RICHTER directed her fiance, RUSSELL
SCHERTZ, and mother, ANNA RICHTER, to contact Slate's witness Mary Higgins.
TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER and RUSSELL SCHERTZ that Mary Higgins had
once told her about a journal implicating her first husband, Dr. John Pitman, in the alleged
December 13, 2001, home invasion. ANNA RICHTER repeatedly tried to contact Mary
Higgins in the weeks that followed TRACEY RICHTER's arrest.
On July 28, 2011, while in the Douglas County (Omaha, Nebraska) Jail, TRACEY RICHTER
and ANNA RICHTER had the following conversation:
TRACEY RICHTER: Yeah. I think --but I do think it's important that you calf Mary Higgins
because -- see, and then it says about-- thai I discussed the evidence in detail with the FBI.
And I didn't-- I don't think I discussed anything in detail with the FBIANNA RICHTER: It's just really weird. It's just -- I tried calling [Mary Higgins] and nobody
answered. And she has -- she doesn't have an answering service. So I'll try calling tonight.
TRACEY RICHTER: Because the only -- the only evidence that -- like -- the only evidence
!hall learned about afterwards from -- Mary Higgins told me that someone she knew close to
the case, um, told her that they found something that Dustin had like -- I don't know -- notes
or a diary or something with information in it about me. Thai was it.
Then, TRACEY RICHTER's fiance, RUSSELL SCHERTZ, got on the phone, and TRACEY
RICHTER told him the following:
12
But when I read [the criminal complaint], I'm like trying to rack my brain to think what it could
be, like what -- the only thing I can talk about -- I mean think about that the FBI guy asked
me about specifically was he asked me about something my girlfriend Mary Higgins told me
about, which was that someone told her close to the case that they had found something,
and but -- and I remember being -- sitting at my mom's when she called me about that. Bull
don't remember if it was like -- because after the attack, I spent some time at my mom's
(ANNA RICHTER). But I don't remember if it was then or if it was much later, like sometime
alter [Michael Roberts] and I separated and we were like visiting my mom.
Towards the end of the conversation, TRACEY RICHTER again told RUSSELL SCHERTZ
to have her mother, ANNA RICHTER, contact State's witness Mary Higgins:
Yeah. And make sure -- make sure my mom calls Mary Higgins and finds out who told her,
um, about what she had told me about; okay?- Yeah. And tell my mom to tell her it's not a
question of someone gelling in trouble. This is -- this is a big deal now, you know.
RUSSELL SCHERTZ asked TRACEY RICHTER, "and you want me to ask [Mary Higgins]
what?" And TRACEY RICHTER gave the following answer:
[Mary Higgins needed to tell RUSSELL SCHERTZ and ANNA RICHTER] who told [Mary
Higgins] about what she told [TRACEY RICHTER] about. - And that [ANNA RICHTER]
needs to stress [to Mary Higgins] that it's important, because like if they're going to say I
knew about something that I shouldn't have known about and so then that by default means
that I was involved, I mean Mary needs to come forward and say who said it to her.
In one of the phone calls she made from the Douglas County Jail (Omaha) while awaiting
extradition to Iowa, TRACEY RICHTER tried to get her mother, ANNA RICHTER, to agree
that ANNA RICHTER was present when Mary Higgins told TRACEY RICHTER about the
notebook. Later, during TRACEY RICHTER's murder trial, ANNA RICHTER attempted to
testify to this.
In the week that followed this conversation, ANNA RICHTER called the Higgins' residence
numerous times, but no one answered or returned ANNA RICHTER's calls.
Since this arrest, TRACEY RICHTER has been continuously incarcerated in either the
Douglas County Jail, Sac County Jail, or an Iowa prison.
On August 5, 2011, Sac County Attorney (SCA) Ben Smith filed the Trial Information
against TRACEY RICHTER. State v. Richter, Sac County District Court Case No.
FECR011900.
SCA prosecuted and Assistant Attorney General (AAG) from the Iowa
Attorney General's Office, prosecuted the case.

On August 6, 2011, BERT PITMAN said the following to Donna Bistrican in a Facebook
message: I am in Chicago right now. I would love to see you. Is (your home] on the way to
Omaha? In response, Donna Bistrican told BERT PITMAN not to Omaha until TRACEY
13
RICHTER's lawyers [told BERT PITMAN it was okay to do so]." Donna Bistrican then told
BERT PITMAN to call her.
Immediately following TRACEY RICHTER's arrest, Michael Roberts took custody of their
children, N.R. and M.R., and moved to California where he was enrolled in the State of
California's victim protection program. Save for a few monitored calls Michael Roberts
allowed TRACEY RICHTER to have with their children, Michael Roberts did not allow
TRACEY RICHTER and her family to have any contact I communication with his children,
mostly because TRACEY RICHTER and her family continued to blame Michael Roberts for
TRACEY RICHTER's plights. In the few instances where he did allow TRACEY RICHTER
to speak to the children over the phone, he had to abruptly end the calls because TRACEY
RICHTER, rather than engage her children in a meaningful, motherly conversation, instead
probed them for information and details as to their current whereabouts.
On November 7, 2011, a Webster County, Iowa, jury convicted TRACEY RICHTER for the
first degree murder of Dustin Wehde. The following non-exhaustive list of persons either
were listed as witnesses in the State's Trial Information and I or testified against TRACEY
RICHTER at her murder trial: Dr. John Pitman, Mary Higgins, Mona Wehde, Ashley Wehde,
Raymond Friedman, Marie Friedman, Michael Roberts, and Jeremy Collins (collectively
"State's witnesses").
As mentioned earlier, during the trial, ANNA RICHTER tried to testify that Mary Higgins was
the one who told TRACEY RICHTER about the existence of the pink spiral notebook (not
the other way around as Mary Higgins had testified). ANNA RICHTER was not able finish
her story because the State made a hearsay objection to the question I her answer, which
the Court sustained.
On December 3, 2011, just days before she was to be sentenced, TRACEY RICHTER and
her mother, ANNA RICHTER, were caught trying to solicit fraudulent testimony from this
convicted child molester in effort to get TRACEY RICHTER a new murder trial. Specifically,
TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in letters to the convicted child molester:
"I pray for a miracle and [interviewed with] [Dateline NBC] hoping it would cause someone to
come forward with helpful information"; "You need to understand that I am guarded. I used
to ... trust people until they gave me a reason not to trust them. That has changed. Now my
trust must be earned over time and actions speak louder than words"; "I'm not sure whether
your friend was following the [murder case] out of sheer curiosity or he knows something. If
he does [tell him] the statute of limitations has run out on assault and burglary so he has
nothing to lose if something feels bad and wants to come forward [and] wants to do the right
thing"; "there is the possibility there was a 'lookout' person [in addition to the three others
TRACEY RICHTER alleged were responsible for Dustin Wehde's murder], too. My lawyer
has the contact details [for Dateline NBC] if your friend knows anything he wants to share.
14
I'm sure God would bless anyone brave enough to come fmward."
On December 5, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER was sentenced to life in prison without the
possibility of parole.
As demonstrated below, beginning December 2011 I January 2012, through as recently as
June 23, 2014, DARREN MEADE, TRACEY RICHTER, ED MAGEDSON, ANNA RICHTER,
and others have been publishing defamatory and harassing stories about the State's
witnesses on literally millions of webpages. These defamatory stories and comments
accuse the State's witnesses of theft, perjury, fraud, computer hacking, child molestation,
murder, and terrorism.
DARREN MEADE
DARREN MEADE is a forty-seven-year old resident of Laguna Beach, California. DARREN

MEADE held the position of CEO of Progenex Dairy Bioactives, a Delaware company, from
July 2010 through February 2011. During this period of time, he willfully and
enthusiastically participated in a criminal conspiracy to embezzle in excess of one million
dollars of the company's funds in pursuit of an exclusive license agreement allowing access
to and the use of an illegal structure query language (SQL) injection script capable of
removing online consumer complaint reports from existing "gripe" websites such as
RipOffReport. com, Blogspot.com and others.
On or around November 7, 2007, ADAM ZUCKERMAN was convicted for his role as the
principal organizer in a fraudulent 20-plus million dollar bank leasing scheme, which the US
Department of Justice (USDOJ) named "Operation Lease Fleece." Following his conviction,
while awaiting sentencing for his role as the principal organizer in the aforementioned
leasing scheme, ADAM ZUCKERMAN was on supervised released with U.S. Pretrial
Services. http://www .justice.gov/usao/cac/Pressroom/pr2007/141.html
In November 2009, Dr. Scott Connelly, unaware of ADAM ZUCKERMAN's past, entered
into an investment agreement with ADAM ZUCKERMAN's company, VenturePharma, in
order to raise investment capital to fuel a medical research and development venture that
Dr. Scott Connelly's company, Progenex, had developed.
Throughout Dr. Connelly's contact with ADAM ZUCKERMAN, which was between 2009 and
2010, ADAM ZUCKERMAN dropped his surname and used the alias "ADAM STUART" in a
deliberate effort to conceal his status as a convicted felon awaiting sentencing for his role
15
as the principal organizer in the 20-plus million dollar fraudulent leasing scheme. When
ADAM ZUCKERMAN's true identity and status as a convicted felon awaiting sentencing
was revealed to Dr. Scott Connelly, which was in April2010, Dr. Scott Connelly resigned as
CEO of Progenex, moved to rescind the investment deal, and initiated a series of
disclosures concerning ADAM ZUCKERMAN's fraud to the Santa Ana, California branch
offices of the United States Attorney's Office Attorney and the FBI.
In an attempt to prevent his fraudulent actions from becoming known to federal authorities,
ADAM ZUCKERMAN launched a preemptive, vexatious civil action against Dr. Scott
Connelly to deflect his personal culpability in the creation of the investment fraud. When his
expected result of a quick settlement and exhaustive non-disclosure agreement did not
materialize, ADAM ZUCKERMAN instigated a systematic online defamation campaign
against Dr. Scott Connelly in the hopes that the publication of these libelous and untruthful
allegations would coerce Dr. Connelly's acquiescence to ADAM ZUCKERMAN's desired
cover up. ADAM ZUCKERMAN and his felonious cohorts hired DARREN MITCHELL
MEADE as Progenex's CEO to front their group's efforts to harass and intimidate Dr. Scott
Connelly. DARREN MEADE would later admit in a two-day deposition that he was hired by
ADAM ZUCKERMAN solely for the purpose of harassing and intimidating Dr. Scott Connelly
into settling his case civil case with ADAM ZUCKERMAN and ADAM ZUCKERMAN's
criminal organization ("the criminal organization" or "criminal accomplices"). ADAM
ZUCKERMAN and his criminal organization paid DARREN MEADE a salary and agreed to
pay him a $200,000.00 bonus if he was able to coerce and intimidate Dr. Scott Connelly into
settling his civil case against ADAM ZUCKERMAN and his criminal organization.
Throughout his tenure as Progenex CEO, DARREN MEADE was fully aware that ADAM
ZUCKERMAN had recently been convicted of a multi-million dollar bank leasing scheme
and would eventually be incarcerated in a federal prison.
In effort to suppress negative content appearing about them online, which began appearing
after Dr. Scott Connelly exposed them, ADAM ZUCKERMAN and DARREN MEADE, using
company I Progenex funds, hired Michael Roberts' company, Rexxfield, to help fix I bolster
their respective online reputations.
In February 2011, ADAM ZUCKERMAN, DARREN MEADE, and their criminal accomplices
worked to seize control and ownership of Michael Roberts' company, Rexxfield, for the
purpose of usurping the rights to an existing contract Rexxfield had with MATTHEW
COOKE for the use of an illegal SQL technology, which, when deployed, could effectively
remove webpages from the internet.
ADAM ZUCKERMAN and DARREN MEADE sought to monetize this technology by creating
an online reputation management company that would market this illicit technology ISQL
16
injection hack as an online "reputation management" service that offered to "repair" an

unsuspecting customer's online reputation by removing whatever webpage(s) the customer
believed was damaging the customer's reputation (or the customer's competitors webpage
for that matter), using the above-mentioned SOL hack. ADAM ZUCKERMAN and DARREN
MEADE charged up to $5,000.00 per removal.
Progenex funds were used to negotiate and execute a partnership agreement between
ADAM ZUCKERMAN and Rexxfield, and in Feb 2011, Progenex funds were embezzled to
cure an existing default of the Rexxfield-Cooke agreement. Unbeknownst to Rexxfield, this
partnership agreement granted ADAM ZUCKERMAN, DARREN MEADE, and their
accomplices, a sixty-percent (60%) controlling interest in Rexxfield and transferred the
rights to this illicit technology from Rexxfield to an entity wholly owned by ADAM
ZUCKERMAN and his accomplices. Acquiring Michael Roberts' business and deploying an
illegal hacking technology on a mass scale for profit, in addition to being well outside the
scope of Progenex's charter, was patently illegal.
In the latter half of January 2011, DARREN MEADE e-mailed Rexxfield employee Paul
Portelli for the purpose of trying to go behind Michael Roberts' back to discover the contact
information for MATTHEW COOKE (purported inventor and proprietor of this illicit SQL
technology) to solicit I court MATTHEW COOKE and his hacking technology away from
Michael Roberts I Rexxfield and into the folds of DARREN MEADE and ADAM
ZUCKERMAN's ongoing criminal enterprise (i.e., cutting out the middle man, Michael
Roberts)
On February 19, 2011, DARREN MEADE asked ADAM ZUCKERMAN for the address of
Paul Portelli (Michael Roberts' I Rexxfield employee) so that DARREN MEADE could go
over to Paul Portelli's home and intimidate him with a 9mm pistol.
On February 20, 2011, DARREN MEADE suggested that he and ADAM ZUCKERMAN
should begin publicly accusing Michael Roberts of child molestation to pressure Michael
Roberts' into giving DARREN MEADE and ADAM ZUCKERMAN's criminal organization the
exclusive rights to MATTHEW COOKE's illicit SQL technology.
On February 20, 2011, in an e-mail to ADAM ZUCKERMAN with the subject heading
"Conspiracy Theory Gone Wild," DARREN MEADE suggested that he and ADAM
ZUCKERMAN begin publicly accusing Michael Roberts of hiring Dustin Wehde to kill
TRACEY RICHTER (i.e., accuse Michael Roberts of being criminally responsible for Dustin
Wehde's murder) to pressure and leverage Michael Roberts into giving DARREN MEADE
and ADAM ZUCKERMAN's criminal organization the exclusive rights to MATTHEW
COOKE's illicit SQL technology. DARREN MEADE suggested that he and ADAM
ZUCKERMAN have lunch the following day and "devise how to play this card" against
17
Michael Roberts.
On February 23, 2011, DARREN MEADE told Paul Portelli that DARREN MEADE was
aware of ADAM ZUCKERMAN's criminal history and, despite this, continued to work for
ADAM ZUCKERMAN and their criminal organization because they were his "partners" and
he (DARREN MEADE) wanted to make "millions" removing RIPOFF REPORT complaints
from the internet using MATTHEW COOKE's illicit SQL hack. This is absolute proof
DARREN MEADE was aware of ADAM ZUCKERMAN's criminal behavior, and was quite
content to assist in covering up the same.
DARREN MEADE continued to actively engage in this conspiracy until February 24, 2011,
when he learned that ADAM ZUCKERMAN and his other criminal co-conspirators had
usurped the SQL partnership opportunity for themselves and effectively disenfranchised
DARREN MEADE from their ongoing criminal endeavors, including their planned
development of a reputation management business with MATTHEW COOKE (and his illegal
hacking code), which meant DARREN MEADE would no longer receive his weekly CEO
"paycheck" from Progenex, and was no longer eligible for the bonus that was contingent on
his successfully harassing and defaming witness I litigant Dr. Scott Connelly into
submission.
On February 24, 2011, DARREN MEADE reached out to Paul Portelli, the Rexxfield
DARREN MEADE sought intimidate with a 9mm pistol just five days prior (February 19,
2011), and Michael Roberts, and told them that he (DARREN MEADE) had resigned from
Progenex to protect Rexxfield and their interests in the deal with MATTHEW COOKE. Also
during this conversation, DARREN MEADE told Michael Roberts and Paul Portelli that he
(DARREN MEADE) and ADAM ZUCKERMAN had sold over $50,000 of "RIPOFF REPORT
removals" in just one week. DARREN MEADE told Michael Roberts and Paul Portelli the
following about his experience in removing RIPOFF REPORT complaints from the internet
for mass profit:
Because when you, you know - I cold-called people to see what would happen is you
(inaudible) and we just went on and made phone calls. And you essentially get cussed out
initially because they have been hit up by everybody, and some of the people have paid
money and nothing happened for them. But then they are all willing to go ahead and move
forward and try it out. So if you had it on a larger scale and say you were doing (inaudible)
$500, they could still sell it for 15 to 3,000, you have a lot of revenue. If you did a thousand a
month with one wholesaler, that's $500,000 coming in. What's your overhead on that? A
couple months of beating bushes to pull the wholesalers together, and in the interim, you
could sit and [could continue to make money removing RIPOFF REPORT complaints
yourself].
DARREN MEADE also told the two that the only reason he did not resign sooner was
18
because he needed Progenex's resources to help repair his online reputation (i.e., money to
pay professionals to remove derogatory content about him from the internet), which had
been badly damaged after his role in the group's ongoing criminal enterprise had been
exposed by its victims. To support this, DARREN MEADE told Michael Roberts and Paul
Portelli the following:
I mean, you have to --you asked me last night why --why I was still in Progenex, and I said,
did you see what happened to my [online] reputation? So if you Google [my name, DARREN
MEADE] and Progenex and you start clicking on all the links ... and some different websites
they have [up about DARREN MEADE's and ADAM ZUCKERMAN's ongoing criminal
activities] ... they are complete character assassinations. So, for me to be hired as a
consultant to work for somebody right now, I would never pass a due diligence.
Also during this conversation, DARREN MEADE told Michael Roberts and Paul Portelli that
he (DARREN MEADE) and ADAM ZUCKERMAN planned to "just [remove] RIPOFF
REPORT [complaintsj ... and make a lot of money from it." DARREN MEADE told Michael
Roberts and Paul Portelli that he (DARREN MEADE) had a contractual right to MATTHEW
COOKE's illicit hacking technology, and that he had "noticed [ADAM ZUCKERMAN}" that he
planned to exercise this right. Incredibly, DARREN MEADE told Michael Roberts and Paul
Portelli that he was aware ADAM ZUCKERMAN had been using the alias "ADAM STUART"
to conceal his true identity from Progenex's shareholders I investors, because said
individuals would probably not have been so willing to "invest" in ADAM ZUCKERMAN's
new company or Progenex if they knew it was being ran by a convicted felon on pretrial
release and was awaiting sentencing for his principal role in a multi-million fraudulent bank
leasing scheme. DARREN MEADE also told Paul Portelli and Michael Roberts that ADAM
ZUCKERMAN had instructed DARREN MEADE to create "wholesalers that can sell a
couple thousand RIPOFF REPORT [removals] per month," and that "they" would sell these
wholesalers a one-time "franchise [fee] (for access to the illicit SQL hack) for. .. $25,000." At
the end of this conversation, DARREN MEADE invited Michael Roberts and Paul Portelli
over to his Laguna Beach to continue their discussion.
On February 27, 2011, in what was clearly an effort to intimidate ADAM ZUCKERMAN and
DARREN MEADE's other (former) criminal co-conspirators from shying away from the deal
with MATTHEW COOKE for the illicit hacking technology, DARREN MEADE, in an
announcement on the free press release distribution service www.PRLOG.com, announced
his resignation as CEO of Progenex, and in doing so, named ADAM ZUCKERMAN as the
company's "major beneficial stakeholder, not "ADAM STUART," the alias DARREN MEADE
and the criminal enterprise had been using to conceal ADAM ZUCKERMAN's true identity.
In this press release, which DARREN MEADE wrote in the third person, DARREN MEADE
said, among other things, that "I cannot in good conscience continue due in part to the
19
irreconcilable philosophical differences I have with the major beneficial stakeholder ADAM
ZUCKERMAN who for the most part controls the company and related entities."
The evidence shows, however, that the only irreconcilable philosophical difference
DARREN MEADE had with his former criminal co-conspirators was that DARREN MEADE
believed he was unfairly ousted from the criminal enterprise and that he (DARREN MEADE)
alone should have MATTHEW COOKE's illicit hacking technology.
On February 28, 2011, in an e-mail, DARREN MEADE informed MATTHEW COOKE, the
inventor I owner of this illicit hacking technology, that he (DARREN MEADE) had a
"unilateral non-circumvention agreement" that gave DARREN MEADE a priority claim to
MATTHEW COOKE's illicit SQL hack over that of ADAM ZUCKERMAN's criminal
organization. DARREN MEADE also informed MATTHEW COOKE that "ALEXANDER
BORJIA" (another ADAM ZUCKERMAN alias)
was really convicted felon ADAM
ZUCKERMAN, and that any further dealings related to the illicit SQL hack between
MATTHEW COOKE and ADAM ZUCKERMAN violated DARREN MEADE's contractual
rights to the illicit SQL hack.
Later that same day, MATTHEW COOKE, a man with whom DARREN MEADE had
extensively communicated in the previous two or three months, responded to DARREN
MEADE's above-email as follows: "Dear Mr. Meade, I do know you, nor have I ever been a
party to any agreement with you, and I do not appreciate the continuous calls and emails. I
expect that this communication is the last of our dealings as we have nothing further to
discuss." Shortly after sending this response to DARREN MEADE, MATTHEW COOKE
sent an e-mail to Michael Roberts wherein MATTHEW COOKE admitted that DARREN
MEADE (not "a man named DARREN MEADE" or "a DARREN MEADE") had just sent him
a "confusing" e-mail message and referred to DARREN MEADE by his first name, "Darren."
Following this failed, frenetic attempt to cajole and coerce MATTHEW COOKE and ADAM
ZUCKERMAN into letting him back into the criminal enterprise's SQL licensing I RIPOFF
REPORT removal scheme, DARREN MEADE, forced to confront the realities bearing down
on him (unemployment and being a named defendant in a complex civil fraud proceeding,
neither of which could be mitigated if the truth about his actions while acting as the CEO of
Progenex were revealed) instigated an ever escalating feigned "whistle-blower" campaign to
notify I inform law enforcement and the media of ADAM ZUCKERMAN's (formerly ADAM
ZUCKERMAN and DARREN MEADE's) organization's ongoing criminal activities, all in
effort to obfuscate his responsibility and involvement for the same crimes, which he had
committed alongside them as Progenex's CEO. However, as the foregoing demonstrates,
the ONLY thing responsible for DARREN MEADE's twenty-four hour transformation from
degenerate criminal to whistleblowing white knight, was that he learned ADAM
20
ZUCKERMAN and his other former co-conspirators had kicked him out of the "deal" and he
would no longer have access to MATTHEW COOKE's hacking code to make "millions"
removing RIPOFF REPORT complaints.
On March 4, 2011, DARREN MEADE told Michael Roberts that "at the end of the day, [Dr.
Scott Connelly] is a [ADAM ZUCKERMAN's victim] just like you, [Michael Roberts).
On November 21, 2011, DARREN MEADE made a sworn declaration to the Federal Court
in which he had stated he intimate knowledge that his former accomplices and coconspirators, ADAM ZUCKERMAN, KIRK MCMAHAN, and others, had effectively
reconstituted their fraudulent BRICKBANC ("Operation Lease Fleece") operations under the
name XBANKER
while ADAM ZUCKERMAN and KIRK MCMAHAN were on pretrial
release with the federal government. Below is an excerpt from DARREN MEADE's sworn
declaration:
In late 2010, I was present during a meeting where [ADAM ZUCKERMAN] and KIRK
MCMAHAN became very concerned that if the true nature of the activities taking place at
XBANKER were revealed they would have a negative impact on their pending sentencing in
the BRICKBANC case. As a result they decided to do two things. First, ADAM
ZUCKERMAN's mother, MIRIAM ZUCKERMAN, would be prohibited from entering the
building and communicating with any XBANKER customers out of a fear that the customers
would make a connection between MIRIAM ZUCKERMAN and ADAM ZUCKERMAN and
thus reveal his background. Second, XBANKER's operations would have to be shut down by
January 2011.
Bank records and other information obtained by law enforcement and other information
demonstrates that ADAM ZUCKERMAN, KIRK MCMAHAN, while on pretrial release and
awaiting sentencing, along with DARREN MEADE and a handful of others, essentially
reconstituted the operations of BRICKBANC ("Operation Lease Fleece") under the name
XBANKER.
In the weeks and months that followed his reluctant departure from ADAM ZUCKERMAN's
organization, DARREN MEADE, on multiple occasions, told Michael Roberts, Dr. Scott
Connelly, the United States Department of Justice, including numerous FBI Special Agents
and Assistant United States Attorneys, and others, that he (DARREN MEADE) was duped
by ADAM ZUCKERMAN (aka ADAM STUART, aka ALEXANDER BORJIA) and his other
former co-conspirators and that Michael Roberts and Dr. Scott Connelly were also victims of
ADAM ZUCKERMAN and his organization (which, from June 2010 through February 24,
2011, included DARREN MEADE).
On June 21, 2011, and September 26, 2011, DARREN MEADE was deposed in Connelly v.
Does, Superior Court Of The State Of California, County Of Orange, Case No. 30-2011-
21
00453171. In this deposition, DARREN MEADE testified to the following:
He (DARREN MEADE) was hired by ADAM ZUCKERMAN to use the internet to defame
and harass Dr. Scott Connelly to pressure Dr. Connelly into settling his civil case with
ADAM ZUCKERMAN at al. and ending Dr. Scott Connelly's efforts to have law
enforcement revoke ADAM ZUCKERMAN's and KIRK MCMAHAN's pretrial release (i.e.,
harass and defame a witness to obtain some form of advantage over the witness in
pending litigation).
He (DARREN MEADE) was offered premium incentives, both in cash ($200,000.00) and
equity in Progenex, provided his defamation campaign proved successful in securing a
settlement from Dr. Scott Connelly.
Michael Roberts was ADAM ZUCKERMAN's victim, not his co-conspirator, that it was
ADAM ZUCKERMAN who threatened his life (not Michael Roberts as DARREN MEADE
would later allege).
He and the above-mentioned convicted felons conspired to use stolen Progenex funds to
procure an illicit hacking technology for the purpose of creating a reputation management
service that would charge its customers, victims I subjects of online defamation,
$5,000.00 to remove a RIPOFF REPORT complaint or other defamatory content on the
internet, and would accomplish this by injecting illicit source code (hacking) into RIPOFF
REPORT's servers.
He (DARREN MEADE) and ADAM ZUCKERMAN sold $50,000 worth of [RIPOFF
REPORT removals] in less than a week, maybe spending a total of only three hours on
the phone. DARREN MEADE further testified that he and ADAM ZUCKERMAN did not
need to advertise their services, because all they did was read the RIPOFF REPORT
website and wail for somebody to publish something derogatory about a business and
you would just turn around and call the business an say, "I see that you have this
problem. We can make it go away for $3,000." DARREN MEADE further testified that
"THEIR largest client's were attorneys."
DARREN MEADE further testified that "Ripoff Report never deletes anything written
about somebody. So it's the perfect place to defame somebody because it will always
stay up, and for some reason it winds up ranking on the first page of Google. So if you
want to destroy somebody's reputation, that's a great place to do it."
Michael Roberts was not aware that deploying the SQL code was illegal at the time
Michael Roberts was attempting to purchase it.
A review of both DARREN MEADE's e-mail communications, disclosures he made to

federal law enforcement officials from April 2011 through Nov 2011, as well as admissions
he made in his above-mentioned deposition, leaves no doubt that as of the date he
assumed the role as Progenex CEO, which was in June 2010, as well as throughout his
22
entire tenure there, DARREN MEADE knew ADAM ZUCKERMAN was using a number of
aliases to conceal his criminal past. This proves DARREN MEADE was fully aware of the
criminal scheme to steal Progenex funds and defraud its shareholders. In fact, in a
November 15, 2011, e-mail, DARREN MEADE wrote that he "was the CEO of Progenex
[and] knew what was being committed financially."
On August 29, 2011, at KIRK MCMAHAN's sentencing hearing, while sitting alongside a
victim of ADAM ZUCKERMAN's most recent fraudulent operation, XBANKER, DARREN
MEADE told a sitting Federal District Court Judge that ADAM ZUCKERMAN and KIRK
MCMAHAN threatened to explode DARREN MEADE's brain with a .50 caliber bullet if
DARREN MEADE ever threatened to expose them.
On October 24, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER's murder trial started.
On October 25, 2011, in an email to Michael Roberts, DARREN MEADE thanked Michael
Roberts for providing him updates on TRACEY RICHTER's murder trial and told Michael
Roberts that he was praying for him.
On October 28, 2011, DARREN MEADE began making extortive demands of State's
witness Michael Roberts for financial payments, which Michael Roberts refused. As a result
of Michael Roberts' refusal to give DARREN MEADE money, DARREN MEADE's demands
and threats towards Michael Roberts escalated.
In November 2011, flat broke and bereft of any employment, with his history of fraud having
been exposed online, DARREN MEADE, desperate for a source of income, saw an
opportunity to forge a relationship with ED MAGEDSON, the owner, operator, and "EDitor"
of Ripoffreport.com, by providing ED MAG EDSON with information about the ongoing report
removal attacks that he (DARREN MEADE), ADAM ZUCKERMAN, MATTHEW COOKE,
and his other co-conspirators had been executing with the SQL technology. However,
DARREN MEADE (assumedly) failed to tell ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT and the
FBI that he actively and enthusiastically participated in this same scheme before he got
booted out of the deal. In fact, DARREN MEADE would later admit that he (DARREN
MEADE) removed derogatory RIPOFF REPORT complaints about himself (DARREN
MEADE) by injecting this illegal source code into RIPOFF REPORT's servers. Furthermore,
during his conversation with Paul Portelli on 23 Feb 2011, DARREN MEADE stated that the
reason for his voluntary continued involvement with convicted felon ADAM ZUCKERMAN
was to "make money off the [RIPOFF REPORT removals]."
On November 5, 2011, two days before TRACEY RICHTER was to be sentenced,
DARREN MEADE launched his first reprisal against Michael Roberts when, in the comment
section below an online news story about TRACEY RICHTER's case, he accused Michael
23
Roberts of being criminally responsible for Dustin Wehde's murder.

The next day, on November 6, 2011, the jury in TRACEY RICHTER's murder trial handed
down their guilty verdict.
On November 10, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER's good friend DONNA BISTRICAN and
DARREN MEADE had a phone conversation that lasted over one hour.
On November 22, 2011, ANNA RICHTER called DARREN MEADE (one minute).
On November 23, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in a letter to Jim Landa, a
convicted child molester incarcerated in Wisconsin: "Recently a man came forward with
claims my [second) husband, [Michael Roberts] threatened to kill him and befriended a
mentally unstable man and got that man [sic) to break into his [sic] present home."
On November 27, DARREN MEADE called ANNA RICHTER and the two spoke for seven
minutes.
On November 28, 2011, ANNA RICHTER and DARREN MEADE had a phone conversation
that lasted over eighty-three (83) minutes.
On November 29, 2011, ANNA RICHTER and DARREN MEADE had a phone conversation
that lasted about fifty (50) minutes.
On December 1, 2011, DARREN MEADE and RUSSELL SCHERTZ, TRACEY RICHTER's
fiance, spoke on the phone for eighty-seven (87) minutes.
Between December 12 and 15, 2011, DARREN MEADE visited Arizona and stayed in a
hotel on the same road on which RIPOFF REPORT's attorneys are located.
In December 2012, DARREN MEADE began publishing harassing and defamatory stories
on the internet about the State's witnesses, most of which he and others published as
"complaints" on the purported consumer advocacy website www.ripoffreport.com (RIPOFF
REPORT). Among many other things, these "complaints" accuse the State's witnesses of
murder, child molestation, terrorism, perjury, and a myriad of financial crimes, including
fraud.
RIPOFF REPORT
RIPOFF REPORT (www.RipOffReport.com) is incorporated in the State of Delaware as

XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC ("RIPOFF REPORT). ED MAGEDSON is the owner,
24
operator, and "EDitor" of RIPOFF REPORT. RIPOFF REPORT earns money through
advertisements on its website. RIPOFF REPORT is an Arizona based company, but is
incorporated in the State of Delaware. RIPOFF REPORT derives financial benefit and
income by selling advertisement space on its website and through its "Corporate Advocacy
Program" and its RIPOFF REPORT Verified 1M program (collectively "CAP"), both of which
are expensive services provided solely by RIPOFF REPORT, which mitigate, and in some
instances, remove negative, defamatory RIPOFF REPORT complaint for a hefty fee.
The RIPOFF REPORT enterprise markets the CAP programs to the subjects of Reports,
typically after strongly urging them to file rebuttals. By joining CAP or otherwise making
financial arrangements with the RIPOFF REPORT enterprise, a subject can buy the
privilege of essentially writing (or approving) his or her own Google search result. The CAP
member writes or approves between 250 and 350 additional words of positive content that
will be inserted into the body of a Report and also in a known strategic location in the HTML
for the Report. 250 words is just the right amount of text to push the surrounding negative
content so far down in the HTML as to be irrelevant to search engines. Thus, negative
content virtually disappears from the Google search results for CAP members, replaced by
the words approved by the CAP member. Because Google's search algorithms are
generally influenced to select text that "matches," between both a web page and the
corresponding HTML (that is, identical text that is present in both), putting the positive
content in the strategic location in the HTML, along with a matching block of text in the
Report effectively negates the harmful effect of the Report with the Google search engine.
According to RIPOFF REPORT employee I agent SIAMACK YAGHOBI (aka SAM
YOUBANKS), RIPOFF REPORT I XCENTRIC VENTURES is worth more than 35 million
dollars.
On December 10, 2011, DARREN MEADE wrote the following Face book message to a
friend: "I leave for Arizona on Monday to meet with the FBI and then for a job interview
afterwards ... looks like I might do an interview on Dateline NBC in 2-3 weeks to get the story
out on all of this. The job interview is in [Arizona], but I would still work from Laguna."
Between December 12 and 15, 2011, DARREN MEADE visited Arizona and stayed in a
hotel on the same road on which RIPOFF REPORT's attorneys are located.
On December 21, 2011, DARREN MEADE sent an e-mail, which contained the job proposal
he pitched to ED MAG EDSON I RIPOFF REPORT.
In early January 2012, ED MAGEDSON and RIPOFF REPORT possessed and had
25
knowledge of DARREN MEADE's aforementioned deposition.

On or around January 1, 2012, DARREN MEADE told Dr. Scott Connelly he was hired by
TRACEY RICHTER's mother, ANNA RICHTER, and brother to help TRACEY RICHTER get
a new trial.
On January 1, 2012, TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to have BERT PITMAN see
if he could get "[DR. JOHN PITMAN's former girlfriend, Allisan Tucker] to turn on Dr. John
Pitman." TRACEY RICHTER added that [AIIisan Tucker] is looking to further her career and
if she [had] something on [Dr. John Pitman] that could be helpful, know what I mean?''
TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER that "it would be heaven" and would "serve [Dr.
John Pitman] right" if he was betrayed by someone he put before his son (BERT PITMAN).
On January 3, 2012, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that DARREN MEADE was
"going after" Michael Roberts.
On January 20, 2012, TRACEY RICHTER told BERT PITMAN he "[needed] to work magic."
TRACEY RICHTER told BERT PITMAN to talk to Dr. John Pitman's nurses to see if any of
them had information that would prove Dr. John Pitman lied when he testified against
TRACEY RICHTER. BERT PITMAN said he had talked to one of Dr. John Pitman's nurses
and could get more information from that nurse. TRACEY RICHTER told BERT PITMAN to
tell this nurse that the nurse would have the potential to save someone's life (TRACEY
RICHTER's life). BERT PITMAN said this nurse wanted to talk, and another one of Dr. John
Pitman's employees was tired of Dr. John Pitman. BERT PITMAN stated he would talk to
people who work for Dr. John Pitman. BERT PITMAN told TRACEY RICHTER he did not
know the situation with Dr. John Pitman's former girlfriend, Allisan Tucker, and whether she
would tell BERT PITMAN anything. TRACEY RICHTER said she thought "[AIIisan Tucker]
would "f''k Dr. John Pitman over in a heartbeat." BERT PITMAN said the last time he went
out on a limb for TRACEY RICHTER, his father, Dr. John Pitman, cut him off, so he (BERT
PITMAN) needed to be careful, and should hire a lawyer before he talked to Allisan Tucker,
because it could backfire on him (BERT PITMAN). TRACEY RICHTER directed BERT
PITMAN to get Allisan Tucker's contact information and give it to ANNA RICHTER, and
ANNA RICHTER would contact Allisan Tucker so that BERT PITMAN's participation in the
matter would not be known to Dr. John Pitman.
On January 26, 2012, Journalist Glenn Puit, published RIPOFF REPORT complaint No.
article 829020, which is more or less a damning account of the criminal activities of
convicted felons ADAM ZUCKERMAN and KIRK MCMAHAN described earlier herein.
On January 28 and 30, 2012, DARREN MEADE wrote the following to Dr. Scott Connelly
and Dr. Scott Connelly's attorney: "It seems my deposition was sent to a third-party the
26
General Counsel for Ripoff Report. Do you have any idea how this happened?"; "I have not
authorized ANY dissemination of the depositions"; "I need to ask for you to keep [your]
promise .... [that you] will not disseminate [DARREN MEADE's deposition to third parties
without clearing it with [me, DARREN MEADE]"; and "going behind my back [and giving my
deposition to] [RIPOFF REPORT] is bad faith; "I explained to you the FBI investigation [into
the RIPOFF REPORT hacking to remove complaints for profit, of which DARREN MEADE
was part] is in it's fragile state. That the boiler room information should funnel through me,
instead you had [your attorney] reach out directly and he offers up my deposition [to
RIPOFF REPORT]?"
On February 3, 2012, TRACEY RICHTER asked ANNA RICHTER whether there was
anything else on RIPOFF REPORT and I or whether RIPOFF REPORT was going after
Michael Roberts, "big time." ANNA RICHTER said RIPOFF REPORT was going after
Michael Roberts, "big time." ANNA RICHTER said DARREN told her RIPOFF REPORT had
Michael Roberts on the run and that Michael Roberts had to be going crazy. ANNA
RICHTER said RIPOFF REPORT had not yet published her "complaint" on RIPOFF
REPORT, even though she had submitted it to RIPOFF REPORT a number of days prior.
TRACEY RICHTER directed her mother to check RIPOFF REPORT every single day.
On February 14, 2012, DARREN MEADE authored I published RIPOFF REPORT complaint
No. 839253, the first version of "Google-Cide Exposed By The Man Who Knew Too Much,
DARREN MEADE threatened and life in danger - SEO (Search Engine Optimization)
Reputation Management dark side," which is an oft updated RIPOFF REPORT complaint
deliberately crafted to deflect and obfuscate DARREN MEADE's knowledge of and
enthusiastic participation in the criminal scheme leading to the executed SQL hack licensing
agreement between ADAM ZUCKERMAN and MATTHEW COOKE. In this original report
(and subsequent updates by DARREN MEADE himself) DARREN MEADE admitted his eye
witness status but purposely omitted critical facts regarding the true nature of his volitional
participation with ADAM ZUCKERMAN's plan from November 2010, continuously up to
February 24, 2011, at which time DARREN MEADE became aware that ADAM
ZUCKERMAN had usurped the SQL licensing opportunity for himself and was proceeding
without DARREN MEADE. To further camouflage his culpability he even included facts
concerning the involvement of Reputation.com in the bidding process for exclusive access
to the license rights to MATTHEW COOKE's SQL code:
I was recruited as the CEO of another [ADAM ZUCKERMAN]-controlled entity, Progenex,
from which he embezzled the funds to acquire both a controlling interest in Rexxfield and the
rights to the SOL injection code. In completely unrelated news, the hacker who wrote it
MATTHEW COOKE was the brain behind RemoveYourName.com. That is, until he sold the
domain (is that all?) to the well-meaning folks at Reputation.com. Draw your own
27
conclusions.
The underlined hyperlink (see below) included in the original (and subsequent updates)
provided evidence of the statement by MATTHEW COOKE referring to an offer of
$60,000.00 put forth by Reputation Defender (name changed to Reputation.com in January
2011)
for
exclusive
use
rights
to
the
criminal
SQL
code.
http:l/www.ripoffreport.com/features/audio/Matthew-Cooke-Caii-With-Michaei-Roberts.mp3
Bank records recovered in the course of the Progenex embezzlement investigation
confirmed that MATTHEW COOKE's online property RemoveYourName.com was acquired
as an "asset purchase" by Reputation Defender (now Reputation.com) in December of 2010
less than 30 days after the execution of the Rexxfield-Cooke SQL license agreement (aka
'Trade Secret Purchase agreement") was executed. Financial transactions and other
records also indicate that during that same time frame (Oct-Dec 201 0) MATTHEW COOKE
was operating an "affiliate partner'' network in which dozens of existing online reputation
management companies were paying MATTHEW COOKE to remove clients' online
complaint reports by using his SQL code on a fee-for-service basis. The evidence shows
that by late 2010 MATTHEW COOKE had also created an online business model of
"reputation racketeering" in which his online property RipOffRant.com, a website, which
operated the same as RIPOFF REPORT, was used to create defamatory reports about
individuals and businesses alike. Victims of online defamation would then be solicited via
one of MATTHEW COOKE's (or one of his affiliate partner's) reputation management
companies, proffering removal services.
This business model is identical to the organization disclosed by the investigation and
prosecution by California State Attorney Kamala Harris of REVENGE PORN website
operator KEVIN CHRISTOPHER BOLLAERT. Evidence disclosed to the public indicates
KEVIN BOLLAERT was earning tens of thousands of dollars per month by simultaneously
operating dual websites. One website posted nude pictures of female victims while the
other (ChangeMyReputation.com) would solicit these same victims for the removal of the
offending pictures. Many of the offending images were obtained by hacking the victims
email accounts and cell phones.
http:l/www.omaha.com/news/nation/alleged-revenge-porn-site-operator-heads-totrial/article_Od36d51 c-eb6d-5bb0-884d -2b69beaab1 09.html
DARREN MEADE also said the following in this RIPOFF REPORT complaint (No. 839253):
When I told [ADAM ZUCKERMAN] I would not be involved, I was offered a six-figure bribe
and an equity stake in the venture. I chose option B, tendering my resignation. Shortly
thereafter, I received an audio recording wherein [ADAM ZUCKERMAN] and Rexxfield
operatives describe in great detail the effects a .50 caliber bullet will have on my
28
brain should I ever go public with this information. I suppose it's mildly amusing audio if you
can ignore the fact that it's coming from someone with a history of criminal violence THIS IS
A CALL FOR HELP. I am literally putting my life on the line to expose not just another
Internet scam, but a threat against the very fabric of our society: The right to speak the truth
and be heard. I only hope someone hears me before it's too late.
On February 21, 2012, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that DARREN MEADE
told her that Michael Roberts and his children left the United States using fraudulent
passports. ANNA RICHTER stated TRACEY RICHTER and Michael Roberts' son, N.R., is
still in the United States because Michael Roberts' wife, Dr. Heidi Roberts (aka Heidi
Forsbacka) hated N.R. ANNA RICHTER stated she was going to give TRACEY RICHTER's
fiance, RUSSELL SCHERTZ, information about Michael Roberts and TRACEY RICHTER
and Michael Roberts' children, N.R. and M.R.
On February 21, 2012, TRACEY RICHTER directed her mother to get orders from the U.S.
State Department and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to get a "printout" of
all Michael Roberts' wife's and children's flight activities and then get their credit information
to track their spending to locate Michael Roberts. The two discussed filing kidnaping
charges against Michael Roberts and his wife, Dr. Heidi Roberts. TRACEY RICHTER said
they needed to obtain a court order to give to the Australian Consulate in Chicago, Illinois,
and any other information that would allow them to find N.R., M.R., and Michael Roberts.
TRACEY RICHTER said she believed Michael Roberts was fraudulently receiving welfaretype benefits for himself and their children from the Australian government and that they
could get the Australian government to "go after" Michael Roberts. ANNA RICHTER said
that JOHN RICHTER told her that he believed the same about Michael Roberts receiving
welfare benefits. TRACEY RICHTER gave ANNA RICHTER a list of information they
needed to obtain on I about N.R. and M.R. TRACEY RICHTER said they needed to get
Michael Roberts' wife's travel records from ICE because Michael Roberts may have
changed his name, but that Heidi Forsbacka (aka Dr. Heidi Roberts) may not have. ANNA
RICHTER said DARREN MEADE also asked her to get information about Michael Roberts'
wife, Dr. Heidi Forsbacka (aka Dr. Heidi Roberts). TRACEY RICHTER stated that ICE
would not give this information without a court order. TRACEY RICHTER said they needed
to obtain a court order directing Michael Roberts to return to the U.S. with the children within
forty-eight hours, and if he had them in Australia, it would be impossible for him to comply
with the Court's order, which would allow them to have an amber alert issued and have
Michael Roberts held in contempt of court. ANNA RICHTER stated that Michael Roberts is
scared because he knows he is going to be arrested and that Michael Roberts probably
gave the children to his wife, Dr. Heidi Forsbacka (aka Dr. Heidi Roberts), believing he was
going to be arrested. ANNA RICHTER said she recently sent an e-mail to TRACEY
29
RICHTER's fiance, RUSSELL SCHERTZ, concerning the foregoing. TRACEY RICHTER

said she make an affidavit that she did not give Michael Roberts permission to take the kids
out of the country and, "if [she had] to," she would swear that Michael Roberts once
threatened to take the children to Thailand. TRACEY RICHTER said they needed to put up
a website about Michael Roberts's wife, Dr. Heidi Forsbacka (Dr. Heidi Roberts), M.R., and
N.R., to help find the children. ANNA RICHTER said she would get DONNA BISTRICAN to
help her create this website.
On February 23, 2012, TRACEY RICHTER gave her passwords to her two computers to
ANNA RICHTER. TRACEY RICHTER indicated one of her computers was at her fiance,
RUSSELL SCHERTZ's home, and the other was in ANNA RICHTER's possession.
TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to search the computer for files labeled
"Passport" and "Michael Ross Roberts." TRACEY RICHTER indicated that the latter
contained all of Michael Roberts' personal information ANNA RICHTER said she told
RUSSELL SCHERTZ she would get him this information. TRACEY RICHTER said
RUSSELL SCHERTZ had checked to see if her and Michael Roberts' children, N.R. and
M.R, had passports by using their social security numbers and birthdates. ANNA RICHTER
said JOHN RICHTER told her that Michael Roberts obtained fraudulent passports for their
children TRACEY RICHTER said RUSSELL SCHERTZ and I or John Richter was I were in
the process of getting more information from the U.S. State Department and that she
wanted them to get the "guy from the State Department" on the phone. ANNA RICHTER
said she believed a warrant for Michael Roberts' arrest should be issued immediately for
"falsifying legal paperwork." TRACEY RICHTER said the guy at the U.S. State Department
is ready to issue an arrest warrant for Michael Roberts. TRACEY RICHTER said RUSSELL
SCHERTZ gave photographs of N.R. and M.R. to the "guy" at the U.S. State Department for
comparison. TRACEY RICHTER said Michael Roberts could have changed their
appearances.
On February 26, 2012, ANNA RICHTER asked TRACEY RICHTER whether RUSSELL
SCHERTZ talked to TRACEY RICHTER about her children. ANNA RICHTER said JOHN
RICHTER told her (ANNA RICHTER) that "people" who knew Michael Roberts believed he
was still in the U.S., but that DARREN MEADE believed TRACEY RICHTER and Michael
Roberts' daughter, M.R., was no longer in the U.S. ANNA RICHTER said JOHN RICHTER
was going to obtain information concerning Michael Roberts' travels with his children, N.R.
and M.R. ANNA RICHTER said someone authorized to access this information was going
to give it to JOHN RICHTER. TRACEY RICHTER said it was clear Michael Roberts did not
have his car registered in his name otherwise they would have found it. TRACEY
RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to have DARREN MEADE include in his affidavit that he
heard through "the grapevine" that M.R. was not in the U.S. ANNA RICHTER said they
30
should soon learn whether M.R. was still in the U.S. because JOHN RICHTER was going to
use his source to find out whether the kids had traveled. ANNA RICHTER said JOHN
RICHTER can lawfully access certain government databases to see whether passports
have issued for N.R. and M.R., and whether the children had left the U.S. ANNA RICHTER
said JOHN RICHTER could lose his job if he did certain searches, butlhallhe searches he
would be conducting were legal. ANNA RICHTER slated that they have done these
searches before on "someone" to see if that person has traveled out of the country.
On March 2, 2012, pursuant to a subpoena, SCA Smith provided an affidavit in Michael
Roberts and TRACEY RICHTER's custody modification proceedings, which supported
Michael Roberts. Later that day, John Richter sent an affidavit to RUSSELL SCHERTZ's
place of business, ConAgra Foods in Omaha, Nebraska, and RUSSELL SCHERTZ
forwarded the same to TRACEY RICHTER's attorney. In this his affidavit, JOHN RICHTER
referenced a criminal complaint that alleged Michael Roberts had called him on October 29,
2011, and threatened to shoot and kill John Richter with a sniper rifle. Also in his affidavit,
John Richter accused your applicant, SCA Smith, of committing a number of crimes,
including obstructing his police department's investigation into the alleged death made by
Michael Roberts.
Your applicant believes JOHN RICHTER fabricated this complaint against Michael Roberts
to access information that would not otherwise be available to JOHN RICHTER absent a
bona fide criminal investigation.
LOCATING MICHAEL ROBERTS, N.R., AND M.R.
As discussed earlier, immediately following TRACEY RICHTER's arrest, Michael Roberts

look custody of their children, N.R. and M.R., and moved to California where he was
enrolled in the State of California's victim protection program. Save for a few monitored calls
he allowed TRACEY RICHTER to have with their children, Michael Roberts did not allow
her and her family to have any contact with his children, or know their current whereabouts.
On August 6, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER, that TRACEY RICHTER's
son, N.R., who was three years old when TRACEY RICHTER murdered Dustin Wehde,
"[remembered] some things about the attack" and, therefore, needed to be added as
witness in her criminal case. TRACEY RICHTER told her mother that her criminal defense
attorney was attempting to find a lawyer to get an order prohibiting Michael Roberts from
31
leaving the United States with N .R. and M.R.

On August 9, 2011, after TRACEY RICHTER's bond review hearing, TRACEY RICHTER's
criminal defense attorney asked SCA Smith for Michael Roberts' address because they
were trying to find TRACEY RICHTER's children. This attorney also told SCA Smith that
they warned the U.S. State Department that Michael Roberts may be attempting to get U.S.
passports for N.R. and M.R. so he could take them out of the United States.
On August 20, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER that they checked an
address that they believed was Michael Roberts' primary residence. TRACEY RICHTER
stated that her brother, John Richter, a police detective in another state, had talked on the
phone with TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorney{s) for three hours.
On August 25, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER's fiance, RUSSELL SCHERTZ, told TRACEY
RICHTER that he was thinking about filing kidnapping charges against Michael Roberts.
On August 26, 2011, RUSSELL SCHERTZ read TRACEY RICHTER the contents of an
online article concerning Michael Roberts and DARREN MEADE. TRACEY RICHTER told
RUSSELL SCHERTZ to contact the author of the article, who was I is believed to be
DARREN MEADE, using a "disposable e-mail." RUSSELL SCHERTZ and TRACEY
RICHTER discussed a list RUSSELL SCHERTZ had of past physical addresses for Michael
Roberts, which TRACEY RICHTER had compiled over the years.
On August 28, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER told RUSSELL SCHERTZ he needed to find a
way to have N.R. be made a witness in her murder case so that Michael Roberts would
have to bring him back to the area.
On September 4, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER, that "this DARREN
MEADE "[knew something about Michael Roberts]."
On September 7, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER's defense attorney's notified your applicant that
they intended to call TRACEY RICHTER's son, N.R., as a witness in TRACEY RICHTER's
murder trial.
On September 9, 2011, RUSSELL SCHERTZ told TRACEY RICHTER that they are trying
to find Michael Roberts' IP addresses and other information in effort to locate him and his
children. Later in this conversation, RUSSELL SCHERTZ and TRACEY RICHTER
conspired to sneak a television producer into TRACEY RICHTER's criminal depositions as
TRACEY RICHTER's "third attorney."
On October 4, 2011, one of TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorney's asked SCA
Smith for Michael Roberts' address so they could serve him with a subpoena to testify in
TRACEY RICHTER's criminal case. SCA Smith told this criminal defense attorney that
32
"[p]ersonal service of any out-of-state subpoena for Michael Roberts can be made by
serving [his Iowa attorney] ... at the below address."
On September 16, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER received a document sent to her by ANNA
RICHTER, which concerned Michael Roberts and DARREN MEADE's business
association. ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she found the document on the
internet. The document was a letter DARREN MEADE sent to the US DOJ on or around
July 22, 2011, wherein DARREN MEADE told the US DOJ that Michael Roberts was ADAM
ZUCKERMAN's victim.
On September 19, 2011, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that her son, JOHN
RICHTER, had given her documents concerning Michael Roberts. ANNA RICHTER said
she planned to have JOHN RICHTER, a police detective in another state, look up personal
information about Michael Roberts and his associates.
On October 24, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER's murder trial began.
On October 28, 2011, about a week before the jury convicted TRACEY RICHTER of first
degree murder, JOHN RICHTER sent the following Facebook message to his nephew,
TRACEY RICHTER and Michael Roberts' son, N.R.:
Me, [TRACEY RICHTER], [TRACEY RICHTER's sister], [ANNA RICHTER] and [RUSSELL
SCHERTZ] luve [sic] you guys very much, you should be home soon. Tell [M.R.] lluve [sic]
her to [sic]." JOHN RICHTER went on to ask N.R. "where [sic] you guys living now?
On October 29, 2011, five days into TRACEY RICHTER's murder trial, JOHN RICHTER
alleged Michael Roberts called him at his police precinct that day and threatened his life.
The following is an excerpt from JOHN RICHTER's report concerning this alleged incident:
SAID VICTIM (DET. [JOHN RICHTER], #20768) WENT TO THE 002ND DIST. DESK TO
REPORT A TELEPHONE THREAT WITH SAID OFFENDER (ROBERTS, MICHAEL).
VICTIM RELATED THAT SAID OFFENDER CALLED HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT['"]
AND STATED "YOU BETTER SHUT YOUR MOUTH ABOUT ME" WHEN THE VICTIM
ASKED THE OFFENDER TO REPEAT HIMSELF, THE OFFENDER STATED "KEEP IT UP,
AND KEEP IN MIND THAT I HAVE A VERY GOOD RIFLE SHOT." VICTIM THEN ASKED
OFFENDER IF HE WAS THREATENING HIM AND OFFENDER THEN STARTED
SCREAMING RELIGIOUS REFERENCE ABOUT REVENGE. THE PHONE CALL WAS
THEN DISCONNECTED AFTER MID SENTENCE. VICTIM RELATED THAT HE HAS
TAKEN SAID OFFENDER'S STATEMENT AS A DIRECT THREAT TO KILL HIM. THE
VICTIM IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED HIS [SUPERVISING SGT) [OF THE INCIDENT AND
FURTHER INFORMED SGT. [SUPERVISING SGT) THAT SAID OFFENDER HAS A
PREVIOUS DOM. BATTERY CONVICTION AND IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BE IN
POSSESSION OF ANY FIREARMS. [SUPERVISING SGT INFORMED) VICTIM TO
33
REPORT INCIDENT TO THE 002ND DJST. DESK. VICTIM GIVEN REPORT FOR
INCIDENT AND ADVISED ON [WRJT]/ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEDURES.
On November 7, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER was convicted of murder. TRACEY RICHTER's
criminal defense attorneys neither subpoenaed Michael Roberts or called N.R. as witness.
To believe John Richter here, you have to believe that Michael Roberts, on the precipice of
getting full custody of his children and finally being vindicated for any involvement in Dustin
Wehde's murder, after not speaking to JOHN RICHTER in more than a decade, while in
hiding, called JOHN RICHTER at his police precinct while JOHN RICHTER was on duty,
made the same death threat (sniper rifle) he allegedly made to DARREN MEADE in 2010,
(according to DARREN MEADE's second or third version of this supposed incident).
On April 24, 2012, DARREN MEADE, in an e-mail to SCA Smith, knowingly provided false
information to SCA Smith to help TRACEY RICHTER get a new criminal trial and aid her in
her upcoming custody hearing. DARREN MEADE used the following e-mail address to
communicate with SCA Smith: dmeade@kairos-meade.com.
DARREN MEADE also told SCA Smith the following:
He (DARREN MEADE) had information that TRACEY RICHTER's second exhusband, Michael Roberts, was responsible for Dustin Wehde's murder and that
he provided this information to law enforcement in Iowa in December 2010 and
January 2011.
Michael Roberts, not DARREN MEADE, partnered with ADAM ZUCKERMAN

and his criminal organization. In support of this, DARREN MEADE provided links
to his RIPOFF REPORT complaints about Michael Roberts.
Michael Roberts had threatened to kill DARREN MEADE: "[Michael Roberts] let
me know that he owns a sniper rifle [sic] that he uses .50 caliber bullets 'and that
he is a very good shot."'
He (DARREN MEADE) was aware SCA Smith already provided testimony

favorable to Michael Roberts in Michael Roberts and TRACEY RICHTER's
custody proceedings in Buena Vista County, and, at the upcoming custody
hearing, SCA Smith needed to change his testimony and support TRACEY
34
RICHTER'S bid to have custody of N.R. and M.R. transferred to TRACEY

RICHTER's mother, ANNA RICHTER.
In the above-mentioned e-mail, DARREN MEADE provided SCA Smith with a link to
DARREN MEADE's Dropbox account, which account was linked to dmeade@kairosmeade.com]. [kairos-meade is business entity solely owned and operated by DARREN
MEADE. The web domain for kairos-meade.com is serviced by GoDaddy]
DARREN MEADE sent blind copies of his e-mails to SCA Smith to ANNA RICHTER
(anna_richter2003@yahoo.com) and TRACEY RICHTER's fiance, RUSSELL SCHERTZ
(rschertz@cox.net). Also on or around this same day (April 24, 2012), DARREN MEADE
sent a barrage of like-e-mails to more than ten news media outlets, including the Des
Moines Register.
DARREN MEADE's phone records, which were obtained by SCA Smith shortly after
DARREN MEADE contacted SCA Smith on April 24, 2012, revealed extensive
communications between DARREN MEADE and TRACEY RICHTER's friends and family.
On April 25, 2012, in a letter to Sac County Sheriff Ken McClure, RUSSELL SCHERTZ
wrote, "a man from California called [Sheriff McClure's Office] at least three (3) times in
early 2011 [sic] and left messages saying that he had information about [Michael Roberts]
being involved in a murder plot ... " but [Sheriff McClure] failed to follow up with this "man
from California." Of course the "man from California" to whom RUSSELL SCHERTZ is
referring is DARREN MEADE. Also in this letter, RUSSELL SCHERTZ alleged the law
enforcement entities that investigated and prosecuted his fiance, TRACEY RICHTER, were
corrupt and I or incompetent, including the Douglas County Sheriffs Office (Omaha,
Nebraska). Many of the same allegations and conspiracies alleged by RUSSELL SCHERTZ
in this letter appeared later in DARREN MEADE's RIPOFF REPORT complaints concerning
TRACEY RICHTER and the State's witnesses. RUSSELL SCHERTZ sent copies of this
letter to over fifty people, including local and national media correspondents and U.S.
Senators. What is most troubling about the allegations RUSSELL SCHERTZ made in this
letter is that before his fiance was convicted for murder, RUSSELL SCHERTZ and TRACEY
RICHTER were using Michael Roberts' then-amicable relationship with DARREN MEADE
against him (Michael Roberts) in their custody proceedings. Additionally, on August 6, 2011,
RUSSELL SCHERTZ called DARREN MEADE "CRAZY." On August 29, 2011, RUSSELL
SCHERTZ told TRACEY RICHTER that DARREN MEADE was an "UNSTABLE
CHARACTER."
On April 26, 2012, ANNA RICHTER sent an e-mail from her account
[anna_richter2003@yahoo.com] to a local newspaper journalist, which asked the reporter to
look at the RIPOFF REPORT story published by DARREN MEADE and added "(!]here is no
35
doubt in my mind that some of the [members of the jury who convicted her daughter,
TRACEY RICHTER, of murder] read the paper and internet that weekend and [TRACEY
RICHTER's second ex-husband] made sure they were filled with his lies."
On May 16, 2012, pursuant to a subpoena, SCA Smith gave testimony favorable to Michael
Roberts in TRACEY RICHTER and Michael Roberts' custody proceedings. Prior to the
hearing, TRACEY RICHTER asked the Court to transfer custody of their children to their
maternal grandmother, ANNA RICHTER. Among other things, SCA Smith testified he
believed ANNA RICHTER and TRACEY RICHTER conspired and attempted to solicit
fraudulent testimony from convicted child molester Jim Landa to get TRACEY RICHTER a
new murder trial and that TRACEY RICHTER had sent Jim Landa a picture of children
knowing he was a convicted child molester.
SCA Smith testified about the e-mails DARREN MEADE had sent him on April 24, 2012.
SCA Smith testified DARREN MEADE's phone records proved he and ANNA RICHTER
had been communicating and that other evidence obtained by law enforcement proved that
Michael Roberts and DARREN MEADE had an amicable relationship up until around
October 24, 2011, when Michael Roberts refused to give DARREN MEADE money. SCA
Smith testified that he believed that TRACEY RICHTER and I or ANNA RICHTER had
DARREN MEADE manufacture false evidence against Michael Roberts to use against him
in the custody proceedings and to get TRACEY RICHTER a new murder trial, much the
same way the two tried to with convicted child molester Jim Landa.
On May 17, 2012, DARREN MEADE sent the following in an e-mail to SCA Smith:
Being that I have no legal background, nor the ability to retain legal counsel, the testimony
requested would be for the grand jury and the only way you would be willing to investigate
the witness intimidation and alleged jury tampering [by Michael Roberts]? In regards to my
outreach and phone calls to the tipline for the Dustin Wehde, I did not keep the telephone
number. I left a voice mail and another time I believe I spoke to someone, it was a female. I
did share my concerns about Michael Roberts. This would be to the best of my recollection
December 2010 to January/February 2011. Mr. Smith, I am now terrified that it seems you
have discussed my e-mails with Michael Roberts the person who has conspired to have me
killed, attempted extortion and threatened me with arrest if I stepped forward with what I
know. The appearance of the e-mails seems to indicate you spoke with Michael Roberts
before even responding to myself. Forgive the accusation but it sincerely causes me
hesitancy going forward for both an honest investigation and that my life may now be truly indanger.
On May 17, 2012, at 12:00 p.m. CST, SCA Smith told the following in an e-mail to DARREN
MEADE: I can have a court reporter lined up for depositions anytime in the afternoon next
week. Please tell me when you will be available (via Skype) to provide regarding the
36
matters issues you have raised in your previous emails to me.

On May 17, 2012, at 4:27p.m., SCA Smith replied to DARREN MEADE:
Yes, this matter was discussed with Michael Roberts. Let's be clear, I do not care about
Michael Roberts, his ability to hack or whatever matters or dealings you guys have that do
not relate to the investigation of crimes occurring in Sac County or over which Sac County
would otherwise have jurisdiction. I do not care about Rexxfield or whatever business
matters or dealings you and Michael Roberts shared. My question regarding the document I
attached in the previous email required a simple yes or no; they either are yours or they are
not. So, I would appreciate an answer to that question.
Another matter that troubles me is your willingness to provide me, via email, all sorts of
information and make very serious accusations about Michael Roberts; but yet you are
unwilling to swear to the same under penalty of perjury. This causes me concern.
There are some issues that concern me greatly regarding statements you have made, the
following just being a few: neither the Sac County Sheriff nor the Sac City Police Department
have a "tipline." Further, there is no record of anyone calling either one of the two
aforementioned law enforcement entities (at their regular phone lines) from 2008 forward
with information even remotely similar to that which you stated you previously provided. The
Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) has also told me they have no record of the
same. Can you see how this is troubling?
I know you have been in contact I had communication (via phone) with ANNA RICHTER. I
also have a statement provided to me by a former associate of yours that indicates you told
said associate that ANNA RICHTER had told you she (ANNA RICHTER) was working to get
a new trial for her daughter, TRACEY RICHTER. Can you see how this is troubling? Even
more troubling is the timing of your communications with me and your reference to the
pending custodial matters in Buena Vista County. I also know that before you called my
office on April12, 2012, you called a television news organization out of Sioux City. Again,
this concerns me. You stated you believe your life to be in danger, so I am assuming you
have made law enforcement in your area aware of such. Please provide me with the names
of all such law enforcement entities to which you have made aware of said danger and your
point(s) of contact for the same [to which you have reported these threats]. If you have not
yet made such a complaint, then I suggest you [hang up the phone], dial 911, and
[immediately report this threat to law enforcement].
You have leveled some very serious charges. As you can see from the above, we do take
these matters seriously and will continue to investigate them accordingly. Please provide me
with answers to all the above questions and please provide me with a yes or no as to
whether you are going to make yourself available for a grand jury investigation.
On May 17, 2012, 5:35p.m. COT, in response to SCA Smith's above-mentioned request,
DARREN MEADE wrote SCA Smith the following: "In regards to your request I am
37
resubmitling my previous emails under the penalty of perjury. I trust this will do until we can
get another agency to Investigate matters since you refuse too [sic] and seem very hostile
from your other email." Interestingly, your applicant is not the first law enforcement official
who DARREN MEADE accused of being hostile after calling DARREN MEADE out on his
lies. In his aforementioned declaration, which was filed in a federal court on November 21,
2011, DARREN MEADE stated that during a phone call he had with an FBI SA on
September 8, 2011, "During the call [the FBI SA] was hostile and accusatory towards me.
He called me a liar on facts that he clearly had wrong."
The e-mail referenced immediately above was the last communication SCA Smith has had
with DARREN MEADE.
On June 2, 2012, BERT PITMAN told TRACEY RICHTER he planned to give the Virginia
Gazelle information about Dr. John Pitman and his association with strippers. TRACEY
RICHTER told BERT PITMAN to reach out to Dr. John Pitman's ex-girlfriend, Allisan
Tucker. TRACEY RICHTER told BERT PITMAN to talk to a former co-worker of Dr. John
Pitman to get dirt on [Dr. John Pitman]. TRACEY RICHTER said Dr. John Pitman
associates with strippers and hookers. BERT PITMAN said the person who told BERT
PITMAN personal, confidential information about one of Dr. John Pitman's patients, which
information could be used against Dr. John Pitman, no longer worked for Dr. John Pitman.
TRACEY RICHTER instructed BERT PITMAN to "reach out" to this person. BERT PITMAN
said he planned to do this.
On July 10, 2012, after learning Dr. Scot! Connelly had produced DARREN MEADE's
deposition pursuant to SCA Smith's investigatory subpoena, DARREN MEADE, in a series
of e-mails, begged Dr. Scot! Connelly to "pull back" the lawfully subpoenaed deposition from
SCA Smith and advise SCA Smith that the deposition transcripts contained numerous
inaccuracies. DARREN MEADE asked Dr. Scott Connelly why Dr. Scot! Connelly again
released DARREN MEADE's deposition with DARREN MEADE's prior approval or
knowledge. Following his refusal to contact SCA Smith and "pull back" DARREN MEADE's
deposition, Dr. Scot! Connelly was defamed on RIPOFF REPORT by an anonymous
author.
On June 17, 2012, TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER they had the ability to get the
IP addresses of the people who published "complaints" on RIPOFF REPORT. ANNA
RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that she was certain the person who put the information
on RIPOFF REPORT about Michael Roberts was one of TRACEY RICHTER's friends.
TRACEY RICHTER said one of the persons responsible for publishing the RIPOFF
REPORT "complaints" about Michael Roberts was the owner of RIPOFF REPORT.
TRACEY RICHTER then told her mother to stop talking about this matter over the phone.
38
On June 29, 2012, DARREN MEADE called MATTHEW COOKE and the two spoke for
close to ten minutes. This is the same MATTHEW COOKE who DARREN MEADE and
ADAM ZUCKERMAN partnered with to monetize the aforementioned illicit SQL code by
using it to remove RIPOFF REPORT complaints for profit ($5,000 per complaint removed).
This is the same MATTHEW COOKE who DARREN MEADE told ED MAGEDSON and the
FBI was responsible for deploying the illicit SQL hack into RIPOFF REPORT's servers.
On August 18, 2012, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that DARREN MEADE
wanted information about Michael Roberts' business. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN
asked her a number of questions. TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER that DARREN
MEADE needed to look up certain information about Michael Roberts. ANNA RICHTER
asked TRACEY RICHTER a number of questions about Michael Roberts' business. ANNA
RICHTER said these questions had come directly from DARREN MEADE. TRACEY
RICHTER had ANNA RICHTER write some things down on a piece of paper to give to
DARREN MEADE. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE told her that State's witness
Raymond Friedman disgusted him. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE wanted to
know where he could get a copy of the picture of Michael Roberts that TRACEY RICHTER
published on the website deadbeatdad.org. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE said
Michael Roberts looked crazy in that picture and DARREN MEADE planned to publish the
picture in one of his upcoming RIPOFF REPORT complaints about State's witness Michael
Roberts. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE had some really bad pictures of State's
witness Mary Higgins that he also planned to publish on RIPOFF REPORT. ANNA
RICHTER said DARREN MEADE told her that his publishing uncomplimentary pictures of
the witnesses on RIPOFF REPORT was "childish and immature, but he [was] doing it
anyway." ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE said there was an unbelievable amount
of lying and corruption involved in TRACEY RICHTER's criminal trial. TRACEY RICHTER
directed ANNA RICHTER to have DARREN MEADE somehow obtain Michael Roberts' tax
returns. ANNA RICHTER said she had already given DARREN MEADE a great deal of
information about Michael Roberts. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE told her State's
witnesses Michael Roberts and Raymond Friedman engaged in shady I crooked business
practices around the time TRACEY RICHTER murdered Dustin Wehde.
On August 20, 2012, TRACEY RICHTER asked ANNA RICHTER whether RUSSELL
SCHERTZ was able to find computer files related to Michael Roberts' business. TRACEY
RICHTER asked which of her computers ANNA RICHTER had in her possession. ANNA
RICHTER said she had the silver computer. ANNA RICHTER said she just spoke with
DARREN MEADE over the phone for one and a half hours. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN
MEADE was getting more information and had asked ANNA RICHTER some questions.
ANNA RICHTER said she had to get answers to these questions from TRACEY RICHTER's
39
fiance, RUSSELL SCHERTZ. ANNA RICHTER said she did not want to discuss these
questions over the phone. TRACEY RICHTER asked ANNA RICHTER if she found the
"master file" on TRACEY RICHTER's computer. ANNA RICHTER said RUSSELL
SCHERTZ took those (computers or files) to his residence in Omaha, Nebraska, because
RUSSELL SCHERTZ knew better than ANNA RICHTER about such things. ANNA
RICHTER said DARREN MEADE wanted information I documents proving TRACEY
RICHTER had her name legally changed from TRACEY RICHTER to SOPHIA CORRINA
THERESA BARONIN VON RICHTERHAUSEN EDWARDS. ANNA RICHTER said she told
DARREN MEADE that TRACEY RICHTER's name change was real because ANNA
RICHTER helped TRACEY RICHTER get copies of the document used to obtain her legal
name change.
SOPHIE CORRINA TERESE BARON IN VON RICHTERHAUSEN EDWARDS
On March 11, 2009, Deputies of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office (DCSO) (Omaha,
Nebraska) were dispatched to TRACEY RICHTER's apartment I residence in Omaha,
Nebraska, to meet TRACEY RICHTER. When the DCSO Deputies arrived, TRACEY
RICHTER identified herself as TRACEY RICHTER. TRACEY RICHTER reported that she
believed her second ex-husband, Michael Roberts, had accessed the interior of her car and
planted photographs of Dustin Wehde's dead body in effort to harass her. The DCSO later
concluded Michael Roberts did not break into her car, and that TRACEY RICHTER made
this false report in hopes to use II against Michael Roberts in some upcoming civil custody I
child support proceeding.
On April 4, 2009, furious at the DCSO Detective who refused to believe her, TRACEY
RICHTER sent the following message to Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI)
Special Agent (SA) Trent Vileta:
One day [Michael Roberts] is going to hurt someone. When he does, I will have the joy of
sitting back and saying 'I told you so.' At this point, even if it is me, it will be worth having his
true character exposed. I just pray he never hurts our children. Wouldn't it be lovely if
[Michael Roberts] hurt that asshole's (Douglas County Detective) kids? Fantasizing about
that kind of stuff is about the only thing that gets me through moments like these.
Later that same day, TRACEY RICHTER sent another e-mail to DCI SA Vileta, which staled
that this Douglas County Detective "had just made the list."
Fearing TRACEY RICHTER was planning to hurt this detective's children and frame
40
Michael Roberts for it,

background.
law enforcement began looking into TRACEY RICHTER's
On or around April 22, 2009, law enforcement learned that on February 19, 2008, TRACEY
RICHTER went to the Iowa Drivers License Station in Spencer, Clay County, Iowa, for a
name change on her Iowa Drivers License. The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT)
agent said TRACEY RICHTER signed an Iowa DOT form for a name change to SOPHIE
CORRINA TERESE BARONIN VON RICHTERHAUSEN EDWARDS, and that TRACEY
RICHTER provided the Iowa DOT with a copy of a court document filed in Buena Vista
County District Court Case No. CDCD002755, a passport, and social security in the name
"SOPHIE C. EDWARDS" as justification for the name change on her Iowa Drivers License.
Law enforcement next learned that on January 17, 2009, the U.S. State Department issued
U.S. Passport No. #####0483 to SOPHIE EDWARDS. Law enforcement learned that
TRACEY RICHTER provided a social security number for SOPHIE EDWARDS as well as
an affidavit signed and notarized by her ex-sister-in-law, "LISA Roberts (Michael Roberts's
sister)" in regards to TRACEY RICHTER's name change on her U.S. Passport to SOPHIE
EDWARDS. The U.S. State Department advised that SOPHIE EDWARDS' last entry of
travel was February 2009, U.S. Passport #####0483, and that her destination of travel was
Los Cabos, Mexico.
On April17, 2009, law enforcement telephoned LEISA Devine (NOT LISA as the name was
spelled on TRACEY RICHTER's I Sophie Edwards' U.S. Passport change of name form)
(formerly Leisa Roberts) to determine whether or not she filed an affidavit in regards to
TRACEY RICHTER changing the name of her U.S. Passport to SOPHIE EDWARDS.
Previously, Michael ROBERTS informed law enforcement he had one sister, Leisa, who
would be TRACEY RICHTER's ex-sister-in-law. Michael Roberts stated that Leisa Devine
last visited the United States around 1999. Law enforcement learned that the U.S. Passport
Affidavit Regarding Change of Name, purportedly signed by "LISA Roberts," was executed
at Boys Town, Omaha, Nebraska, was reviewed and signed by a State of Nebraska Notary
on January 17, 2009. The address provided by "Lisa Roberts" was 1851 N. 115'h Plaza No.
3108, which was identified by law enforcement as being TRACEY RICHTER's residence at
the time. Leisa Devine told law enforcement she last traveled to the United States in
September 2000, for a three-week visit. Leisa Devine told law enforcement that she never
signed and swore to an official document or affidavit on behalf of TRACEY RICHTER
regarding a name change or for any reason. Therefore, she said that she never signed off
on an affidavit regarding a name change of TRACEY RICHTER to SOPHIE EDWARDS.
Leisa Devine told law enforcement she did not get along well with TRACEY RICHTER.
Leisa Devine said that around 2003, TRACEY RICHTER and TRACEY RICHTER's mother,
41
ANNA RICHTER, attempted to reach Leisa Devine at her place of employment via e-mail.
Since TRACEY RICHTER and her mother, ANNA RICHTER, were not speaking fondly of
her brother, Michael Roberts, she said that she requested her place of employment to block
all future incoming e-mails from TRACEY RICHTER and TRACEY RICHTER's mother,
ANNA RICHTER.
On April21, 2009, in a custody proceeding in Buena Vista County, Iowa, District Court Case
No. CDCD002755, when cross-examined by her ex-husband, Michael Roberts, TRACEY
RICHTER testified she had legally changed her name to SOPHIE EDWARDS, but she did
not know whether or not her "legal" name change included a middle name. TRACEY
RICHTER further testified she only used her new name, SOPHIE EDWARDS, for
employment purposes, and that her vehicle was still registered in the name TRACEY
RICHTER. When RICHTER was questioned as to whether or not she obtained a passport in
her new name (SOPHIE EDWARDS), she responded, "No. I think my passport is still in my
old name." When she was asked if she planned on getting a passport in her new name,
RICHTER testified, "No." TRACEY RICHTER testified that her name change to SOPHIE
EDWARDS was completed by filing an affidavit of name change, then providing the affidavit
to the Iowa Department of Motor Vehicles to obtain a drivers license in her new name,
SOPHIE EDWARDS. TRACEY RICHTER testified she did not file a petition for change of
name in the State of Iowa with the Clerk of Court. She also admitted to the court in this
proceeding that she did not have a Nebraska license, although she currently resided in
Nebraska; instead, she admitted she currently had a valid Iowa driver's license utilizing the
name SOPHIE EDWARDS.
On May 7, 2009, law enforcement was told by the Social Security Administration (SSA) that
on December 3, 2009, TRACEY RICHTER requested a name change of her social security
card to the new name, SOPHIE C. EDWARDS, and that TRACEY RICHTER submitted a
divorce decree filed in Buena Vista County District Court Case No. CDCD002755 and Iowa
Drivers License No. #####3673 in the name of SOPHIE EDWARDS in order to obtain I
justify a name change on her social security card.
On May 9, 2009, law enforcement learned that on or around November 21, 2008, for the
purpose of obtaining financing for an automobile under the name SOPHIE EDWARDS,
TRACEY RICHTER gave Lex us of Omaha a copy of what TRACEY RICHTER told Lexus of
Omaha was a court order filed December 4, 2007, in Buena Vista County District Court
Case No. CDCD002755, which, among other things, gave her the choice to RESUME using
her MAIDEN NAME, SOPHIE CORRINA TERESE BARONIN VON RICHTERHAUSEN
EDWARDS. The following is the decretal language contained in the court order TRACEY
RICHTER provided Lexus of Omaha:
42
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: (1) No further

conciliation procedures shall be required in this action. (2) The marriage of Michael Ross
Roberts and TRACEY RICHTER Roberts is hereby, dissolved, and the parties are restored
to the same rights and privileges as unmarried persons. (3) The Respondent, TRACEY
RICHTER Roberts (15 May 1966) may resume use of her maiden name SOPHIE CORRINA
TERESE BARONIN VON RICHTERHAUSEN EDWARDS. (4) The Respondent is granted
authority to obtain U.S. Passports for the minor children, [full name of minor child boy] (26
May 1998) and [full name of minor child girl] (13 FEB 2000) without the permission of the
non-U.S. Cilizen Petitioner who resides at an undisclosed address. (5) The Court retains
jurisdiction to enter Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree pertaining to all other
issues in this case.
On May 9, 2009, the Buena Vista County Clerk of District Court faxed law enforcement a
certified copy of the only order entered in Case No. CDCD002755 on December 4, 2007.
Said order was identical in all respects to the court order TRACEY RICHTER gave Lexus of
Omaha, except the certified copy contained only the first, second, and fifth numbered
paragraphs, numbered (1) (2), and (3), respectively, that were present in the copy of the
decree TRACEY RICHTER gave Lexus of Omaha. The following is the how the decretal
language contained in the certified copy of the Order appears:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: (1) No further
conciliation procedures shall be required in this action. (2) The marriage of Michael Ross
Roberts and TRACEY RICHTER Roberts is hereby, dissolved, and the parties are restored
to the same rights and privileges as unmarried persons. (3) The Court retains jurisdiction to
enter Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree pertaining to all other issues in this
case.
On May 13, 2009, the Douglas County (Omaha, Nebraska) Sheriff's Office executed a
search warrant at TRACEY RICHTER's apartment in Omaha, Nebraska. During the course
of their search, inside a padlocked closet in TRACEY RICHTER's apartment, law
enforcement found, among other things, the following items: a copy of the December 4,
2007, court order that was identical to the certified copy of the same sent to law
enforcement by the Clerk of Court; a copy of the December 4, 2007, court order which was
identical to that provided by Lexus of Omaha, which as noted above, contained two
additional numbered paragraphs, which allowed TRACEY RICHTER to obtain passports for
her children without their father's permission and resume using her maiden name, SOPHIE
CORRINA TERESE BARONIN VON RICHTERHAUSEN EDWARDS; and a hybrid copy of
the original order and a piece of paper containing the two additional paragraphs, cut,
copied, and held together with Scotch Tape.
Also found in TRACEY RICHTER's apartment was an unfiled, unsigned, yet completed
Petition for Name change in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, which, if filed
43
with, and approved by the Court, would have legally changed TRACEY RICHTER's name to
Heidi Joanna Forsbacka, which was I is the name of Michael Roberts' wife.
TRACEY RICHTER, her mother, ANNA RICHTER, and her fiance, RUSSELL SCHERTZ,
have accused law enforcement of planting the forged court decree, its scotched-taped
precursor, and the certified copy of the original in the PADLOCKED closet in TRACEY
RICHTER's Omaha apartment when they executed the search warrant. However, this does
not explain why on July 27, 2010, in her felony perjury trial in Clay County, Iowa (Case No.
FECR014399), TRACEY RICHTER stipulated on the record that these very same
documents were found by law enforcement during its search of her apartment pursuant to
the search warrant issued I executed on or about April 29, 2009. Furthermore, no one in
TRACEY RICHTER's camp can provide a reasonable explanation as to why SOPHIE
EDWARDS listed TRACEY RICHTER as a reference in a job application she submitted to a
prospective employer on January 20, 2009.
On May 18, 2009, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following in another e-mail to DCI SA
Vileta:
Yes, they charged me with felony criminal impersonation. In their complaint they state that I
bought the used Lexus under an assumed name, when in fact all the financing was in [the
name TRACEY RICHTER]. I think this is all about the complaints I made against [the
Douglas County Sheriff's Office Detectives]. They talked about me forging a [document] to
take the kids out of the country which is BS. I have [been] resisting them getting passports as
late as this year. [Michael Roberts] took them to get passport photos whereas I filed passport
alerts with both the Australian consulate and the US State Department. My philosophy was:
no passport, no overseas travel in regard to our kids. Supposedly they found something in
my house to support this passport claim. I would not put it past them trying to set me up. It
should be easy enough to disprove.
On May 27, 2009, TRACEY RICHTER was charged in Clay County, Iowa, with felony
perjury for falsifying the DOT form. On July 27, 2010, she was convicted by a jury for the
same crime. State v. Richter, Clay County District Court Case No. FECR014399
On June 9, 2009, TRACEY RICHTER was charged in Douglas County with criminal
impersonation. On April 19, 2010, she pleaded no contest to felony welfare fraud. State v.
Richter, Douglas County (Omaha, Nebraska) District Court Case No. CR 09 1318.
After learning that law enforcement obtained the transcript of her testimony from April 21,
2009, TRACEY RICHTER, made form of threat to the court reporter who reported the
proceedings, alleging the court reporter incorrectly reported the proceedings (assumedly,
the part of her testimony where she lied about her SOPHIE EDWARDS passport). This
threat caused the authorities in Buena Vista County to post flyers containing TRACEY
44
RICHTER's Drivers License photograph and the following warning at the Courthouse's
entrances:
This photo is of [TRACEY RICHTER]. She has been arrested and released from Omaha,
[Nebraska]. Due to the criminal charges that were filed against her in [Nebraska], she is
extremely angry and upset not only with the authorities [in Nebraska] but also here in Buena
Vista County. [TRACEY RICHTER] has made threats to an employee in the Clerk's Office as
well as [the presiding Judge's] court reporter (who reported the proceedings, and generated
a transcript of the same). All offices in the courthouse have been advised to watch for her,
and if she enters the courthouse, they are to call immediately for law enforcement. [TRACEY
RICHTER] is not banned from entering the courthouse at this time, however, law
enforcement presence will be required anytime she is in the courthouse.
On October 22, 2009, in her Response to Petitioner's Motion for Rule to Show Cause filed
in Buena Vista County District Court No. CDCD002755, TRACEY RICHTER slated her
name change was "done in an EU country where 'middle names' are not utilized" and that
she did not select a middle name. TRACEY RICHTER further told the Court she did not
have a passport issued under the name of SOPHIE EDWARDS and that her new Social
Security number was issued to TRACEY RICHTER, not SOPHIE EDWARDS. TRACEY
RICHTER also told the Court that she did not travel in February 2009.
In June 2010, ANNA RICHTER wrote the following in a letter to then-Sac County Attorney
Earl Hardisty:
Alter all of these crimes the only person being prosecuted is Tracey and she is the only one
who has done nothing illegal. I am not going away until people are held accountable for their
actions and that is including [the Douglas County Detective who investigated TRACEY
RICHTER].
They tried to bring charges against her for using a fake name until it was proven she had a
LEGAL name change. They supposedly found an altered court document in the search of
Tracey's home. This document had her name change on it and permission to get the children
passports. Needless to say [the Douglas County Detective who investigated TRACEY
RICHTER] is the one who found it after another officer looked through that SAME FOLDER
and didn't find it. First, why would she change a court document regarding her name when it
was already changed legally?
This is just one of many letter's I am sending out. I will not stop until Tracey's name is
cleared and ALL charges are dropped and [Michael Roberts] and [the Douglas County
Detective who investigated TRACEY RICHTER] are held responsible for their actions. I know
first hand how corrupt the Douglas County Sheriff s Dept. is by what they have done to me.
On July 28, 2010, ANNA RICHTER wrote the following in a letter to then-Sac County
Attorney Earl Hardisty:
45
I was with her when she went tor her new Driver's license and I know for a fact it was not
used. Also how could Tracey have commilled perjury when the supervisor filled oulthe part
of the form !hal Tracey fell blank, after Tracey signed il????? You can tell il is a different
handwriting and also they should have had Tracey initial il if there were changes made to
il. Don't you agree? This whole thing is fishy to me and you would have lo be awful naive
or stupid not see what is going on. I also find it interesting I hal all of your so called witnesses
[in the Dustin Wehde murder, !hen-suspicious death case] are proven lobe nul cases.
Following her arrest for murder, law enforcement seized, among many, many other things.
two different name change documents TRACEY RICHTER had in a bag in her vehicle.
The first document is titled: "Deed of Change of Name," which purports to be executed on
the "4th day of July 2006 ("July" and the number "4" are handwritten), and reads as follows:
By SOPHIE CORRINA TERESE BARONIN VON RICHTERHAUSEN EDWARDS of 56,
Gloucester Road, London in the County of Greater London now or lately known as Tracey
Anne RICHTER a Commonweallh Citizen under section 37(1) of the British Nalionalily Acl
1981, witnesses and il is hereby declared as follows: I absolutely and entirely renounce,
relinquish and abandon the use of my said former name Tracey Anne Richter and assume,
adopt and determine lo lake and use from the dale hereof the name of SOPHIE CORRINA
TERESE BARONIN VON RICHTERHAUSEN EDWARDS in subslilulion for my former name
of Tracey Anne Richter.
TRACEY RICHTER's (and SOPHIE EDWARDS') signatures on the purported "Deed of
Change of Name" document mentioned above, is witnessed by TRACEY RICHTER's son,
BERT PITMAN. The content of the second document is identical to the first, except its titled
"UK Deed Poll Service, Deed of Change of Name (Deed Poll)" and purports to be executed
"this 2"ct day of February in the year 2008 "2"ct" ("February" and "2008" are handwritten.
TRACEY RICHTER's (and SOPHIE EDWARDS') signatures on this document were also
witnessed by BERT PITMAN.
Sometime after she was arrested for murder, Scotland Yard (Metropolitan Police
Headquarters in London, England) confirmed with law enforcement officials in Iowa that
neither TRACEY RICHTER nor SOPHIE CORRINA
RICHTERHAUSEN EDWARDS were British I UK citizens.
TERESE
BARONIN
VON
On August 15, 2011, in her response to the State's resistance to Defendant's Motion to
Reduce Bond, TRACEY RICHTER (aka SOPHIE CORRINA TERESE BARONIN VON
RICHTERHAUSEN EDWARDS) admitted she did receive a new passport under the name
of SOPHIE EDWARDS and did travel internationally using the same.
On September 12, 2011, less than one month after she was arrested for first degree
murder, and a little over a year after she had been convicted of felony fraud in Nebraska
46
and felony perjury in Iowa, the U.S. Department of State filed a criminal complaint against
TRACEY RICHTER for felony passport fraud (18 U.S.C. 1542). Case No. 8:11MJ195
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. This complaint was dismissed
following her murder conviction and subsequent life sentence.
As mentioned above, on or around September 9, 2012, DARREN MEADE published
TRACEY RICHTER's second change of name document mentioned above, on RIPOFF
REPORT; however, he conveniently cropped out the top quarter of the document where
one usually finds some official government stamp, seal, or other marking that verifies a
government form /legal document's authenticity.
ANNA RICHTER has been vouching for the legality of TRACEY RICHTER's name change
and has alleged to have witnessed TRACEY RICHTER NOT using I producing certain
documents to facilitate this name change. As mentioned above, ANNA RICHTER was with
TRACEY RICHTER when she went to the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) and
witnessed her NOT produce the forged decree. ANNA RICHTER also was with TRACEY
RICHTER when she went to buy the Lexus under the name SOPHIE EDWARDS and
ANNA RICHTER witnessed her NOT produce the forged decree to the dealership to obtain
credit in under the name SOPHIE EDWARDS.
On August 25, 2012, TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER that RUSSELL SCHERTZ
was late getting to the prison to visit her because he had been giving documents to
DARREN MEADE. TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER that RUSSELL SCHERTZ
had previously stated he planned to send documents to DARREN MEADE.
On August 29, 2012, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she had been on the
internet looking at information RUSSELL SCHERTZ sent her. TRACEY RICHTER asked
whether RUSSELL SCHERTZ had found or sent "anything of any value. ANNA RICHTER
said RUSSELL SCHERTZ had sent the information to "you know who," and "you know who"
would be going through this information. ANNA RICHTER said there are other things that
should be "coming out" shortly. ANNA RICHTER said "what's his name" wanted to know if
Michael Roberts was ever deposed or interviewed. TRACEY RICHTER said RUSSELL
SCHERTZ had a copy of Michael Roberts's interview on a disk.
On September 5, 2012, DARREN MEADE (dmeade@kairos-meade.com) wrote the
following to his friend SIAMACK YAGHOBI (siamack. yaghobi@gmail.com):
47
The 'Tracey Story' is the article I have written, read the narrative and when it gets to the links
of the Dateline episode, watch them in sequence. I have documents and reports which will
also be embedded in the article. The flow charts I asked if you can help me with, will be apart
of the article. In the ["players"] document, you will see one section that [is] the Michael &
Tracey outline, that is what needs to be detailed and also a flow chart on the jury tampering
itself. We can work at my house, but it would be a few hours [until] we can, I had some early
meetings, and need to sleep more [than] pray. What is your schedule like later today? Let me
know as well if you [are able to] follow the article.
Included in this e-mail, DARREN MEADE attached two MS Word documents. One of these
documents is DARREN MEADE's RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843 (as it appears
on RIPOFF REPORT, but in MS Word format) mentioned and discussed at great lengths
throughout the remainder of this affidavit) The other attached MS Word document contained
DARREN MEADE's notes on all the State's witnesses and law enforcement officials titled
"The Players."
On September 6, 2012, in his response to DARREN MEADE's e-mail above, SIAMACK
YAGHOBI gave DARREN MEADE suggested additions to what ultimately would become
DARREN MEADE's RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843. Most damning in SIAMACK
YAGHOBI's response, however, is SIAMACK YAGHOBI told DARREN MEADE that he
(SIAMACK YAGHOBI) planned to "FILE A REBUTTAL" on the article that would attack
Michael Roberts. The significance of SIAMACK YAGHOBI's statement to DARREN MEADE
here cannot be understated, as it and other information discussed in this affidavit
demonstrates that ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT and DARREN MEADE know the
anonymous authors publishing add-on complaints and rebuttals to DARREN MEADE's
RIPOFF REPORT complaints, including RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843.
On September 7, 2012, TRACEY RICHTER asked ANNA RICHTER whether she got the
information she needed from RUSSELL SCHERTZ. TRACEY RICHTER asked whether
RUSSELL SCHERTZ put a copy of this information on ANNA RICHTER's computer. ANNA
RICHTER said, "supposedly tomorrow or Saturday, all the other stuff is going to be taken
care of." [In context, this was an obvious reference to DARREN MEADE's forthcoming
RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843) about the State's witnesses]
On September 9, 2012, DARREN MEADE published RIPOFF REPORT complaint No.
938843, which purports to be the results of his investigation into the corruption surrounding
TRACEY RICHTER's criminal prosecution and conviction, but which is nothing more than
DARREN MEADE's and ED MAGEDSON's I RIPOFF REPORT's efforts to harass and
defame the State's witnesses in retaliation for their testimony against TRACEY RICHTER.
Although DARREN MEADE published the complaint on September 9, 2012 (Sunday), it did
not appear on RIPOFF REPORT until September 11, 2012 (Tuesday). RIPOFF REPORT
48
complaint No. 938843 and its progeny (e.g., add-on complaints, rebuttals, and hyperlinks to
other derogatory RIPOFF REPORT complaints about the State's witnesses), among many
other things, falsely accuses the State's witnesses and their family members of committing
murder, theft, perjury, child molestation, and having sexually transmitted diseases. RIPOFF
REPORT I ED MAGEDSON and DARREN MEADE published RIPOFF REPORT complaint
No. 938843 as a "featured" RIPOFF REPORT complaint, which is advertised conspicuously
on each of RIPOFF REPORT's approximate 1.8 million complaint pages. By ED
MAGEDSON's and DARREN MEADE's own admissions that www.ripoffreport.com is
viewed "a couple million times a day," since complaint No. 938843 was published and
featured (September 9, 2012), it is has been viewed over 1.2 BILLION times.
On September 11, 2012, DARREN MEADE sent the following e-mail to ANNA RICHTER, ,
DONNA BISTRICAN, RUSSELL SCHERTZ, and JOHN RICHTER:
Anna and Russ, Thank you for being patient and [sic] during my investigation, [sic] I know it
took longer than expected. If you can promote the article and ask people to offer their
honest opinion, not to compliment me, but to share their own stories of Ben Smith,
Mary Higgins, Michael Roberts, Vileta, etc. http://www.ripoffreport.com/ben-smith-michaelroberts-rexxfield/prosecutorial-misconduct/sac-city -sac-county-iowa-8 1A77 .htm
On September 11, 2012, DARREN MEADE (dmeade@kairos-meade.com) wrote the
following in an e-mail to a SIAMACK YAGHOBI (siamack.yaghobi@gmail.com): "Here is the
link to the article it posted tonight. This will give you an idea of layout for RIPOFF
http://www.ripoffreport.com/ben-smith-michael-roberts-rexxfield/prosecutorialREPORT."
misconductlsac-city-sac-county-iowa-B1A77.htm
On September 12, 2012, DARREN MEADE told private investigator Tina Church, who has
assisted with this investigation, that ED MAGEDSON was the one who suggested to
DARREN MEADE that DARREN MEADE should research I investigate TRACEY
RICHTER's case. DARREN MEADE told private investigator Tina Church that ED
MAGEDSON said he (ED MAGEDSON) would "promote" DARREN MEADE's work on the
case and "get a couple million visitors per day on the site." In discussing his efforts to help
TRACEY RICHTER obtain a new trial, DARREN MEADE told the investigator the following:
The three main witnesses in her trial gave completely different testimony than any of their
depositions, including one month before the trial where they say what they are going to
testify to and to let Ben Smith know if they are going to testify to anything different, and they
all completely testified the opposite of what they said they were going to do.
On September 13, 2012, ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE found more information
and planned to publish it on RIPOFF REPORT at a later date.
On September 13, 2012, DARREN MEADE told private investigator Tina Church that he
49
might be able to get Michael Roberts to leave the U.S. if Michael Roberts believed he was
about to be arrested.
On September 14, 2012, in a three-way phone conversation between ED MAGEDSON,
DARREN MEADE, and private investigator Tina Church, ED MAGEDSON said the
following:
I do not have people writing for me "per se," but if [the investigator] wanted to publish
articles I complaints on RIPOFF REPORT and wanted to make them searchable ... AND IF
YOU WANT TO GO TO THE TOP OF THE SEARCH ENGINE, all you need to do is name
the city, put the name of the attorney, you know, where you want it to be found by the clerk of
the court, whatever you put up [on RIPOFF REPORT] within 20 minutes to an hour or so it
would be at the top of Google.
ED MAGEDSON then told private investigator Tina Church to "search Ben Smith, Sac
County Prosecutor (the title to DARREN MEADE's RIPOFF REPORT complaint No.
938843), see what you get." DARREN MEADE told private investigator Tina Church that ED
MAGEDSON and ED MAGEDSON's attorneys had discussed that SCA Smith was not
acting in the capacity of his official duties, but was acting more like Michael Roberts'
personal attorney. Then, ED MAGEDSON interjected stating "that would be a good title,
Prosecutor - you know, Ben Smith, Sac County Prosecutor... acts as [Michael Roberts]
personal attorney." DARREN MEADE then told the investigator "the thing about [ED
MAG EDSON] is if you ever need a title [for a RIPOFF REPORT complaint], he is the one to
ask." Towards the end of the conversation, ED MAG EDSON told DARREN MEADE to link
one of DARREN MEADE's other RIPOFF REPORT "complaints" about Michael Roberts to
DARREN MEADE's September 9, 2012, RIPOFF REPORT complaint (complaint No.
938843)
On September 14, 2012, ANNA RICHTER told private investigator Tina Church the
following:
[DARREN MEADE] got ahold of [DONNA BISTRICAN] and put something on the Internet.
That's a friend of my daughter's. And had put something on the Internet, and I guess
[DARREN MEADE] read it and he contacted her and then asked if he could talk to me, so
she said, well, I don't want to give you her phone number, let me call her first and see if it's
okay. That's when [DARREN MEADE] contacted me and said he believed in her Innocence
because too many things just were not adding up. And that he was going to help me to prove
her innocence, and I was flabbergasted, because here is this man, doesn't know us at all
and is there wanting to help us.
On September 15, 2012, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER about DARREN
MEADE's September 11, 2012, RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843; specifically,
ANNA RICHTER said there was new information on RIPOFF REPORT about State's
50
witnesses Raymond Friedman, Mary Higgins, and Mona Wehde. ANNA RICHTER also said
DARREN MEADE planned to publish more information on RIPOFF REPORT concerning
the State's witnesses at a later date. ANNA RICHTER further said the "big connection was
money, and that Stale's witnesses Raymond Friedman and Michael Roberts were each
other's alibi." ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that the pictures of State's witness
Mary Higgins published on RIPOFF REPORT by DARREN MEADE were hysterical. ANNA
RICHTER said DARREN MEADE discovered evidence of Michael Roberts having a sexual
relationship with Dustin Wehde, TRACEY RICHTER's murder victim. TRACEY RICHTER
said she was glad someone was pulling the truth out there. TRACEY RICHTER said
DONNA BISTRICAN would help ANNA RICHTER create a Facebook page. TRACEY
RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to have BERT PITMAN send State's witness (murder
victim's sister) Ashley Wehde a Facebook message with a link to DARREN MEADE's
RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE
published a short story about State's witness (and murder victim's mother) Mona Wehde in
this RIPOFF REPORT. The RIPOFF REPORT complaint or story to which ANNA RICHTER
is referring alleges that Mona Wehde was also criminally responsible for her son's (Dustin
Wehde) death.
On September 16, 2012, DARREN MEADE told private investigator Tina Church that he
was publishing an update on RIPOFF REPORT about State's witness Raymond Friedman.
DARREN MEADE also told private investigator Tina Church the following:
So what this really is the -- you have - besides [State's witness Mary Higgins's] testimony,
you have two other people's testimony who tied in the prosecution's time line on why
[TRACEY RICHTER] murdered [Dustin Wehde], and those two people are [State's witnesses
Marie Friedman and Ray Friedman]. Now, [State's witness Raymond Friedman and Marie
Friedman] were interviewed the day after the shooting, and their interviews are the exact
opposite of what they testified to in court. But what happened in between that [time] is
[State's witness Raymond Friedman] was paid $25,000 [by Stale's witness Michael Roberts]
When private investigator Tina Church asked DARREN MEADE about DARREN MEADE's
aforementioned deposition, which apparently had been published somewhere on the
internet, possibly on RIPOFF REPORT, DARREN MEADE said the following:
[Michael Roberts] ... published these fake transcripts from a deposition I gave. And I have
never defended those, but I haven't defended them because I want them all over the Internet
where they can't go and take that stuff down. I want them baked into their position.
When private investigator Tina Church asked DARREN MEADE whether the depositions
were fake, DARREN MEADE said the following:
Not totally fake. What it is ... they changed portions of my answers in there. They also don't
51
have the corrects to the deposition that I gave. So they are miss -- they are altered
transcripts. They also don't contain the corrections that are supposed to be in there.
Later in their conversation, DARREN MEADE told private investigator Tina Church the
following:
The [September 9, 2012, RIPOFF REPORT complaint about the State's witnesses (No.
938843)], I LAID THAT ALL OUT. NOW, I DID BECAUSE [ED MAGEDSON) OFFERED IT
TO ME, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE [RIPOFF REPORT] GO IN AND DROP SOME COLOR
PHOTOS IN THERE, BUT I DID ALL OF THAT ON MYSELF. [ED MAGEDSON] HAS
JUST OFFERED THE PLATFORM, YOU KNOW, of the site because he is passionate about
ending the death penalty. I wrote the article on Tracey just because I am sitting here going
"what the hell is going on," and I was able to get some information and I have some
information I'm still going to bring out.
On September 18, 2012, an extremely upset I distraught TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA
RICHTER she was angry with SCA Smith, because she believed SCA Smith's testimony in
her custody hearing was the reason she lost the custody case with Michael Roberts. ANNA
RICHTER said she would contact DARREN MEADE because he planned to put something
else out there (assumedly about SCA Smith). ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE
wanted something from ANNA RICHTER and wanted to publish this something on RIPOFF
REPORT that very day. TRACEY RICHTER, still sobbing hysterically, told ANNA RICHTER
she did not know what to do now that she lost custody of her kids, which she again blamed
on SCA Smith. ANNA RICHTER said that is why WE are trying to "get [SCA Smith]" and
that there was something else going on that she cold not discuss with TRACEY RICHTER
over the phone. TRACEY RICHTER said RUSSELL SCHERTZ told TRACEY RICHTER
about a conversation DARREN MEADE had with "someone." ANNA RICHTER said
"someone" is going to be investigating Michael Roberts. TRACEY RICHTER directed ANNA
RICHTER to activate TRACEY RICHTER's Facebook page. ANNA RICHTER said her
dream is to get SCA Smith disbarred. TRACEY RICHTER said the reason she did not get
custody of her kids was because of SCA Smith's testimony at her custody hearing about her
aforementioned correspondence with convicted child molester Jim Landa [Although, I am
fairly certain TRACEY RICHTER's murder conviction and life imprisonment played some
role in the Court's decision to give Michael Roberts' full custody of their children]. ANNA
RICHTER said "well, that it is it, I am going to get ahold of [DARREN MEADE] to see if [he
can do something]" about SCA Smith. ANNA RICHTER said she talked "to that one
person." TRACEY RICHTER asked whether this was the same person that had previously
spoken with DARREN MEADE, and ANNA RICHTER said it was.
On September 20, 2012, DARREN MEADE told Dr. Scott Connelly that RIPOFF REPORT
owner I operator ED MAGEDSON planned to spend the night at DARREN MEADE's
52
Laguna Beach residence. Later, DARREN MEADE said he and ED MAGEDSON traveled
together to San Diego where ED MAG EDSON purchased a boat.
On September 20, 2012, ED MAG EDSON sent the following e-mail to the producer of the
Australian version of the U.S. television newsmagazine 60 Minutes:
Also - You may want to look into this story I I steak [sic] my reputation on this . :-)
http://www.ripoffreport.comlben-smith-michael-roberts-rexxfieldlprosecutorialmisconducUsac-city-sac-county-iowa-B1A77.htm
Darren, who I copied on this e-mail string could explain more .. but, The guy in this story
(worth a 60 minutes story) in the above LINK is trying to go back to Australia as he is
Australian I Michael Roberts He is also featured in this article here
http://www. ripoffreport.comlorganized-crimelgoogle-cide-exposedlgoogle-cideexposed-bythe-man-01 cd6.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com1Search1Michaei%20Roberts.aspx
author of the above Reports [sic] DARREN MEADE [sic] is located in Laguna Beach,
California. Darren testified to FBI on several occasions about Michael Ross Roberts.
RIPOFF REPORT has helped every TV News Magazine with stories over the last 15
years. We will never steer you wrong! :-)HERE IS (DARREN MEADE's] CONTACT INFO
=
On September 21 2012, TRACEY RICHTER asked ANNA RICHTER what had been going
on with "that guy (DARREN MEADE)" and whether DARREN MEADE had recently
published anything on RIPOFF REPORT or any other place on the internet. ANNA
RICHTER said DARREN MEADE published an article on RIPOFF REPORT, Google, and
another place online. ANNA RICHTER said ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT put up a
disclaimer that DARREN MEADE had been publishing these RIPOFF REPORT complaints
on his own volition. TRACEY RICHTER described the file sharing software I service
Dropbox as an "online briefcases people can open if you send them a link." ANNA
RICHTER said she asked DARREN MEADE whether she (ANNA RICHTER) should
respond to Michael Roberts' comments, and that DARREN MEADE said he would take care
of it. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE is going to create his own website. TRACEY
RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to print off RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843 and
send it to her at the prison. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE said he I RIPOFF
REPORT planned to publish numerous pictures of TRACEY RICHTER with her children in
effort to "humanize" her, which ANNA RICHTER had given to DARREN MEADE. TRACEY
RICHTER said there should be pictures of her and the kids on her (TRACEY RICHTER's)
computer. TRACEY RICHTER said RUSSELL SCHERTZ had the password for this
computer. TRACEY RICHTER said RUSSELL SCHERTZ had like-pictures in boxes in his
53
garage.
On September 28, 2012, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that DARREN MEADE
had asked her and RUSSELL SCHERTZ for permission to put "good stuff' about TRACEY
RICHTER up on RIPOFF REPORT. TRACEY RICHTER said she saw the pictures of Mary
Higgins that DARREN MEADE published on RIPOFF REPORT and that they were horrible.
On October 7, 2012, in an e-mail to Dr. Scott Connelly, DARREN MEADE said the following
about his deposition:
ALL of my corrections were NOT contained within the depositions you provided to [SCA
Smith]. The agreement we had was clear, it would not be disseminated without garnering my
approval. We had signed a mutual release shortly after I resigned from Progenex. This
deposition was done as a favor to you personally before the case was dismissed to help in
your settlement with Progenex. Ben Smith is essentially acting as Michael Roberts personal
attorney in this matter. Why do you think the DA of Sac County Iowa would be requesting a
deposition which was never entered into evidence, and the case, dismissed, between parties
that already executed a Mutual Release? I [had] stated [SCA Smith] is 'essentially acting as
Roberts' attorney', which is true. On April 2, 2012, I filed an update on RIPOFF REPORT
[about Michael Roberts].
On October 10, 2012, DARREN MEADE told Dr. Scott Connelly that the damage caused by
the dissemination of his "fake" depositions had cost DARREN MEADE employment
opportunities and "millions of dollars."
On October 11, 2012, TRACEY RICHTER told her mother that in his September 9, 2012,
RIPOFF REPORT complaint (No. 938843), DARREN MEADE inaccurately stated that
State's witness Dr. John Pitman's medical practice was located in Chicago, Illinois, and that
DARREN MEADE should correct the RIPOFF REPORT complaint to list the correct location
of Dr. John Pitman's medical practice, Williamsburg, Virginia. TRACEY RICHTER directed
her mother to bring this to DARREN MEADE's attention.
On October 19, 2012, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that DARREN MEADE was
unable to access certain videos and documents on his RIPOFF REPORT complaints and
that he planned to call RIPOFF REPORT to get it fixed.
On November 2, 2012, DARREN MEADE asked his friend SIAMACK YAGHOBI the
following: "Do you know anyone talented with making You Tube videos that might be willing
to make a video for a small amount of money, it would be used to end Google-Cide."
On November 8, 2012, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that she was worried
about DARREN MEADE as she had not heard from him in two weeks. ANNA RICHTER
said she tried to contact DARREN MEADE by e-mail and telephone numerous times, but he
54
had not responded.

On November 22, 2012, DARREN MEADE published an add-on complaint to his RIPOFF
REPORT complaint No. 938843, which he titled "Michael Roberts of Mile2, Lies, and
Audiotapes Causes (Alleged) Perjury of Sac County Attorney Ben Smith Case No.
CDCD002755." The substantive content of this add-on I rebuttal is in keeping with its title.
On November 25, 2012, the anonymous author "VICTIM OF MICHAEL ROBERTS XELLEX
MILE2" posted an add-on I complaint to Ripoffreport.com complaint No. 938843, claimed to
have been groomed by State's witness MICHAEL ROBERTS to kill TRACEY RICHTER.
Said add-on complaint, which purported to be authored by a fifteen-year-old sex abuse
victim of Michael Roberts, alleged Michael Roberts was a drug abuser, homosexual,
pedophile, and rapist. Said author claimed to have first hand knowledge that MICHAEL
ROBERTS chose DUSTIN WEHDE to kill TRACEY RICHTER, and stated, among other
things, the following:
I believed Michael Roberts would kill me if I spoke up. Michael had promised me that we
would run off and have a new beginning as father and son the moment I followed his plan.
He made the same offer to Dustin and promised they would leave town together that
evening.
On November 25, 2012, anonymous author "TIMMY" published RIPOFF REPORT
complaint No. 973523, with the following title: MICHAEL ROBERTS XELLEX REXXFIELD
VACATION BIBLE SCHOOL VACATION BIBLE SCHOOL MOLESTER, YOUNG BOYS
TRUST BETRAYED, GROOMING FOR ABUSE AND MURDER, INTERNET. The content
of this RIPOFF REPORT complaint is in keeping with its title and is essentially identical to
the content of a comment I rebuttal to RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843.
On November 29, 2012, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that something
extremely important had to be done by that Monday, but that she could not talk about it with
her over the phone. ANNA RICHTER said she had been exchanging text communications
with DARREN MEADE, and DARREN MEADE had to get a hold of the attorney
representing TRACEY RICHTER on the direct appeal of her murder conviction.
The following demonstrates the extremely important matter DARREN MEADE had to
discuss with the attorney representing TRACEY RICHTER on appeal probably had
something to do with this newly discovered evidence found by DARREN MEADE.
THE PHANTOM JUROR
55
As mentioned above, on April 26, 2012, ANNA RICHTER sent an e-mail from her account
[anna_richter2003@yahoo.com] to a local newspaper journalist, asking the journalist to look
at the RIPOFF REPORT story published by DARREN MEADE. ANNA RICHTER told the
journalist: "There is no doubt in my mind that some of the [members of the jury who
convicted her daughter, TRACEY RICHTER, of murder] read the paper and internet that
weekend and [TRACEY RICHTER's second ex-husband] made sure they were filled with
his lies."
On June 1, 2012, DARREN MEADE posted the following on The Virginia Gazette's website:
"One person purporting to have been a juror in the Richter murder trial claims to have
[googled] TRACEY RICHTER and what they located online made them decide to convict
her."
Coincidentally, this same thing happened to TRACEY RICHTER following her second
felony conviction (perjury), which was on July 27, 2010, in the Clay County District Court
(Iowa), Case No. FECR014399. On August 18, 2010, while her direct appeal of her felony
perjury conviction was being prepared, someone purporting to be one of the Clay County
jurors who convicted her wrote the following on the Storm Lake Pilot Tribune's website:
I was a juror at the 7/12/10 trial. Her lawyer did not even show us a legal name change
and presented no evidence. During lunch break I googled her and learned the truth about
her. There was no way I was going to let her walk.
In another coincidence, around the same time this anonymous juror published the abovementioned comment, ANNA RICHTER wrote the following in a letter to then-Sac County
Attorney Earl Hardisty:
I'm sure that you found out that [TRACEY RICHTER] was found guilty of perjury in [Clay
County]. Funny how her attorney refused to put on a defense for her, saying there was
no need to. Naturally we are appealing it.
In her motion for new trial filed October 6, 2010, TRACEY RICHTER offered up this
supposed instance of juror misconduct as grounds for a new criminal trial:
There appeared an internet posting on or about August 18, 2010 on the Storm Lake Pilot
Tribune website in apparent response to a reprint of an article on the 2001 Early shooting
case in which the Dustin Wehde died in the Defendant's home. The internet posting
indicated that 'I was a juror at the 7/12/10 trial. Her lawyer did not even show us a legal
name change and presented no evidence. During lunch break I googled her and learned the
truth about her. There was no way I was going to let her walk.
56
On December 10, 2012, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that RIPOFF REPORT
owner ED MAGEDSON wanted BERT PITMAN to send ED MAGEDSON and DARREN
MEADE certain information.
On December 14, 2012, at TRACEY RICHTER's direction, DARREN MEADE published
RIPOFF REPORT complaints Nos. 982235 and 981918, which are open letters from
TRACEY RICHTER to her and Michael Roberts' children, N.R. and M.R. These "letters"
were clearly intended to reach Michael Roberts' minor children when their names are
entered into a Google.
RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 982235, which is DARREN MEADE's I TRACEY
RICHTER's open letter to Michael Roberts daughter, M.R. then 12 years old, is titled:
[M.R.] - [M.R.] I MICHAEL ROBERTS REXXFIELD FOUND TO ABUSE CHILDREN AND
WIFE TRACEY RICHTER CONTINUES ABUSE BY REFUSING TO ALLOW MOTHER AND
DAUGHTER TO CONTACT ONE ANOTHER I MILE2 CHILD ABUSE MILE2, DR HEIDI
ROBERTS CONDONES ABUSE OF [M.R.] AND [N.R.] GOOGLE-CIDE, DR SCOTT
CONNELLY INTERNET
RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 981918, which is DARREN MEADE's I TRACEY

RICHTER's open letter to Michael Roberts son, N.R., is titled:
[N.R.] - Michael Roberts Rexxfield Abusing Children By Refusing Contact His Mother
TRACEY RICHTER I 60 Minutes Australia I Mile2 I Sac County Prosecutor Ben Smith I
[M.R.] I Google-cide
TRACEY RICHTER and DARREN MEADE's above-mentioned letters to N.R. and M.R.,
and their add-on complaints and the content of the complaints behind the numerous
inserted hyperlinks, are filled with demeaning and defamatory content about their father,
Michael Roberts, which, if taken at face value, would be extremely distressing to a child.
DARREN MEADE and TRACEY RICHTER's "letters" to here to N.R. and M.R. were clearly
intended to reach Michael Roberts' minor children via Google. In fact, as of July 5, 2014,
when "[N.R.'s full name] and [M.R.'s full name]" is searched using Google, DARREN
MEADE and TRACEY RICHTER's letters to N.R. and M.R. appear first and second,
respectively, on the first page of the Google search result.
On January 5, 2013, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT (EDitor@ripoffreport.com) told
DARREN MEADE dmeade@kairos-meade.com) that private investigator Tina Church
wanted to help with TRACEY RICHTER's case and directed DARREN MEADE to contact
private investigator Tina Church.
57
On January 6, 2013, DARREN MEADE dmeade@kairos-meade.com) sent the following in

an e-mail to private investigator Tina Church, which he copied to ED MAGEDSON I
RIPOFF
REPORT
(EDitor@ripoffreport.com)
and
ANNA
RICHTER
(anna_richter2003@yahoo.com):
I enjoyed our previous conversations, and was hopeful we might be able to utilize your name
and know-how, to what I had uncovered in regards to the 'abuse of process', 'prosecutorial
misconduct', 'witness intimidation' and wrongful prosecution of TRACEY RICHTER. We had
spoken about working together to not only help TRACEY RICHTER but others suffering the
same travesty of justice. In good faith I put you in touch with both ED MAGEDSON of Ripoff
Report and ANNA RICHTER the mother of TRACEY RICHTER. Tina, is it possible to
authenticate that you are in fact the known private investigator Tina Church, whom worked
often with Innocent Project? I've come across multiple electronic artifacts that have linked
you to Michael Roberts I Rexxfield. Michael Roberts is the master mind whom has placed
TRACEY RICHTER in prison for life without the possibility of parole, conspired to have me
killed (which is on audio tape) and 4 months ago began offering $2,500 for anyone woman to
come forward and provide testimony that I raped them. TRACEY RICHTER is innocent, if
you can help her family, then they certainly need your help. Equally, you can take the work I
have done, and call it your own.
On January 6, 2013, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT wrote the following in an e-mail
to private investigator Tina Church, which he copied to DARREN MEADE {dmeade@kairosmeade.com) and ANNA RICHTER (anna_richter2003@yahoo.com):
When you called me the other night you made a comment to me that was very disturbing to
me. You stated to me, DARREN MEADE told you that he worked for me .. Darren would
never lie. He never has and will not be working for Ripoff Report. This is a well-known claim
by Michael Roberts. AGAIN, I HAVE NEVER EVER KNOWN DARREN TO TELL A LIE, OR
EVEN SWAY FROM THE TRUTH IN THE SLIGHTEST BIT. IF HE IS NOT SURE OF
SOMETHING, HE WILL NOT SAY IT. DARREN IS THE REAL DEAL If Darren is wrong, or
I am wrong - I hope you will understand our concern here.
On January 8, 2013, RIPOFF REPORT owner ED MAGEDSON (EDitor@ripoffreport.com)
wrote the following in an e-mail to private investigator Tina Church:
I am not sure if you are who you say you are, .. and if you could be somehow not a double
agent ... For alii know, you think Michael Roberts' is not guilty and you want to try and save
him .. I have no idea what is going on - but, something is not right. ALL I WANT .. I WANT
TO DO ANYTHING THAT HELPS FREE TRACEY -- I want to do anything that helps those
that are not guilty - after rescuing dogs from being euthanized every day, and my website
helping consumers - the only other thing on my wish list is to help those you are sitting on
death row and those that got life wrongfully. Again, if I am wrong - and you are smart, ..
you can see why I feel the way I do. I AM WILLING TO FEATURING ARTICLES AND
58
PLACE ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THE CAUSE ON MY WEBSITE.
On January 9, 2013, the Iowa court of appeals affirmed TRACEY RICHTER's murder
conviction.
On January 9, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she lost her appeal. ANNA
RICHTER said she published a comment on RIPOFF REPORT that TRACEY RICHTER
was not able to bring up new information on her direct appeal. ANNA RICHTER said
DARREN MEADE wanted TRACEY RICHTER's attorney to serve him with a subpoena.
concerning threats he alleged SCA Smith made to him. ANNA RICHTER said she had
things that she needed to discuss with DARREN MEADE. TRACEY RICHTER said they
needed to subpoena this information from DARREN MEADE to "keep him out of the
middle."
On January 9, 2012, DARREN MEADE published an add-on complaint to his September 9,
2012, RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843, which he titled: THE EVIDENCE OF
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND WITNESS TAMPERING CANNOT BE
INTRODUCED UNTIL AFTER THE "DIRECT APPEAL" (WHICH MEAN ONLY EVIDENCE
FROM THE TRIAL) IS EXHAUSTED. In this comment I add-on complaint, DARREN
MEADE published the following statements TRACEY RICHTER's fiance, RUSSELL
SCHERTZ, made about the Court's decision:
[RUSSELL SCHERTZ) admits the decision will cost Richter, and her family, "years that they
cannot gel back." Richter's appeal was what's called a "direct appeal," which means it could
only include evidence in the court record from the trial. But, Schertz says he's uncovering
new information about "prosecutorial misconduct and witness tampering" that he thinks
should allow for a new trial in the future. For now, Schertz says the family will file an appeal
with the Iowa Supreme Court in the next 20 days.
On January 10,2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that DARREN MEADE was
upset that TRACEY RICHTER lost her direct appeal of her murder conviction. ANNA
RICHTER and TRACEY RICHTER discussed the post-conviction relief (PCR) process
versus that of the direct appeal; specifically, that new evidence can be considered in a PCR
action. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE told her he discovered information that
proved Michael Roberts had motive to frame Dr. John Pitman for TRACEY RICHTER's
murder. ANNA RICHTER said they needed to attack the testimony of the Stale's witnesses.
ANNA RICHTER said she and high school graduate DARREN MEADE discussed trial
strategy, specifically, pulling doubts in the jurors' minds. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN
MEADE planned to publish a RIPOFF REPORT complaint about the horrible job he
believed TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorneys did in representing her. Later, the
two discussed why they believed Michael Roberts was homosexual.
59
On January 11, 2013, DARREN MEADE (dmeade@kairos-meade.com), in an e-mail to

ANNA
RICHTER
(annar_richter2003@yahoo.com),
RUSSELL
SCHERTZ
(rschertz@cox.net), and DONNA BISTRICAN (bcbdonna@gmail.com) said he created the
website TraceyRichter.com, and asked the group to have their friends and family to spend a
couple hours per week creating additional links to the site. The website
www.TraceyRichter.com is replete with links to all the RIPOFF REPORT complaints
concerning the State's witnesses that are referenced in this affidavit. It also provides links to
' the following active social media accounts purporting to be owned, controlled, and authored
by TRACEY RICHTER: Facebook.com, YouTube.com, Twitter.com, AboutMe.com, and
others, all of which contain recent (as recently as June 10, 2014) posts, comments, and
other content that link to the RIPOFF REPORT articles about the State's witnesses.
DARREN MEADE also told them the content up on TraceyRichter.com should be more from
their voices, not his, and that creating these additional profiles and links to the website
would make them all more visible on Google-type search results (thus making the RIPOFF
REPORT complaints more visible). Also in this e-mail, DARREN MEADE provided the
above-named recipients with the login, password, and e-mail (freetraceyrichter@gmail.com)
for the website.
On January 12, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that ANNA RICHTER's
son, JOHN RICHTER, a police detective from another state, obtained information about Dr.
John Pitman's arrest and had given it to her. ANNA RICHTER said BERT PITMAN told her
that Dr. John Pitman spends all his money on prostitutes. Dr. John Pitman had been
arrested pursuant to a bench warrant for failing to appear for court in a civil matter, and the
contempt charge was never adjudicated.
On January 13, 2013, ED MAGEDSON directed DARREN MEADE to contact private
investigator Tina Church to discus their "strategy."
On January 13, 2013, ANNA RICHTER (anna_richter2003@yahoo.com) sent the following
e-mail to BERT PITMAN (bpitman09@gmail.com):
Contact [reporter's name]@vagazette.com, [a reporter from the Virginia Gazette]. I told him
about [Dr. John Pitman's] arrest and other things regarding his taking money from you and
not paying for your college and his girlfriend from Canada. I told him you have more info on
her then I do. Sorry but after what your dad did to Tracey I want him to know how It feels to
have his name in the paper and not in a good way. Once we get the mugshot of him Darren
is going to do a piece on him. I also gave this Carter the Ben Smith Website and the new one
on your mom which I sent you. I hope we can get him interested. Don't put it off. This is
important.
On January 14, 2012, DARREN MEADE published yet another add-on complaint to his
60
September 9, 2012, RIPOFF REPORT complaint (No. 938843), in which high school
graduate DARREN MEADE explained to readers that difference between a direct appeal
and a habeas corpus action (Post Conviction Relief). Specifically, that newly discovered
evidenced, such as "proseculorial misconduct" and "witness tampering" can be introduced
in the latter to obtain a new trial, and not in the former.
On January 14, 2013, TRACEY RICHTER asked ANNA RICHTER if there was a "mug shot"
of Dr. John Pitman. ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that Dr. John Pitman is
pushing his surgery practice into the ground. TRACEY RICHTER slated she hoped to gel
more information on Dr. John Pitman and that she wanted to see Dr. John Pitman's mug
shot. ANNA RICHTER said she e-mailed ED MAGEDSON, the owner I operator of RIPOFF
REPORT, and "that one attorney," which the two had discussed earlier. ANNA RICHTER
said she e-mailed ED MAGEDSON and DARREN MEADE about ED MAGEDSON
something believed to be related to TRACEY RICHTER's case and RIPOFF REPORT.
ANNA RICHTER said BERT PITMAN posted a lot of this content on Facebook. TRACEY
RICHTER said they needed to gel sworn statements from people but that she did not want
to mention any names over the phone.
On January 14, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that DARREN MEADE
asked her for documents from the wrongful death lawsuit brought against TRACEY
RICHTER by Dustin Wehde's estate.
On January 21, 2013, author "BRETT COLLINS" published RIPOFF REPORT complaint
No. 1000888, titled "DR. JOHN PITTMAN THE THIRD, MEDICAL DOCTOR PLASTIC
SURGERY CENTER NAME, PITTMAN SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, A STRANGE EXHUSBAND KEY WITNESS ARRESTED BY SIX ARMED OFFICERS PLASTIC SURGERY
PRACTICE, UNITED STATES ARMY COL." Among other things, this RIPOFF REPORT
complaint accuses Dr. John Pitman of committing perjury, compounding felonies, ongoing
illicit drug use I abuse, and associating with strippers and hookers. The article continues,
alleging that Dr. John Pitman is driving his practice into the ground with "shabby work."
[During one of their phone conversations, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that Dr.
John Pitman "was driving his practice into the ground"]. Also in this complaint are links to
other RIPOFF REPORT complaints concerning Dr. John Pitman.
On January 22, 2013, BERT PITMAN sent the following e-mail message to the Virginia
Gazette; shortly thereafter, he forwarded the message to ANNA RICHTER as proof he
completed the task which she had given him:
To whom it may concern, My grandmother, ANNA RICHTER, had informed me about a week
ago that she had e-mailed you about my father John Pitman and mother TRACEY
RICHTER. I would like to speak with you about very important recent and past occurrences.
61
Including his recent arrest, his possession of the police report on the house invasion/
"murde(', his relationship with Allisan "lachesis" tucker, and many other important and case
breaking actions committed by my father. John Pitman has painted a picture of himself and
his life that is nothing other than a facade. Sorry it took a little while to contact you, I have
been very busy moving to Richmond, working and obviously this has been a extremely tough
situation for a son to be in. My number is 7575855037, please call me at your convenience.
BERT PITMAN.
On January 25, 2013, add-on complaint (rebuttal) to RIPOFF REPORT complaint No.
1000888, titled "DR. JOHN PITMAN AND MICHAEL ROBERTS REXXFIELD CAUGHT
RED-HANDED," was published on RIPOFF REPORT. In this add-on complaint, anonymous
author, "2 DEADBEAT DADS" alleged, among other things, that Michael Roberts and Dr.
John Pitman were responsible for Dustin Wehde's murder. The following excerpt was
contained in the body of the complaint: "[Michael Roberts] told Dateline NBC of wanting to
kill John Pittman prior to 2001, and that Roberts claimed he had more money than Pittman
and would outspend him in the custody hearings over his stepson." [TRACEY RICHTER
and ANNA RICHTER discussed this same subject matter (Michael Roberts wanting to kill
Dr. John Pitman) - in one of their prison phone conversations right before "2 DEADBEAT
DADS" published this RIPOFF REPORT complaint, which concerned the very same subject
matter]
On January 25, 2013, an add-on complaint (rebuttal) to RIPOFF REPORT complaint No.
1000888, titled "DR. JOHN PITTMAN AND MICHAEL ROBERTS VEGAS ORGIES,
SHE/HE AND HE/HE TWISTER, DR. PRESCRIBING PAIN PILLS FOR SEX FUELED
NIGHTS," was published on RIPOFF REPORT. The substantive content of this add-on
complaint, which was authored by anonymous author "SHARED VICTIMS," is in keeping
with the subject matter described in its title. This add-on complaint, like most, if not all the
other RIPOFF REPORT complaints concerning the State's witnesses, contains numerous
hyperlinks that redirect viewers I readers to other RIPOFF REPORT complaints about the
State's witnesses.
On January 25, 2013, an add-on complaint (rebuttal) to RIPOFF REPORT complaint No.
1005913 was published on RIPOFF REPORT with the following title:
DR. JOHN PITTMAN CHEATS ON WIFE LISA PITTMAN WITH RAPPER. DR. JOHN
PITTMAN BROKE WITH MULTIPLE TAX IRS TAX LIENS, FINANCES VIDEO FOR
RAPPER WHICH HAS A BRUTAL HOME INVASION MURDER SIMILAR TO THE
HUSBAND CHEATS ON DEAD FISH WIFE LISA PITMAN, ALLISON TUCKER, TRACEY
RICHTER MURDER TRIAL, SAC COUNTY IOWA WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
On January 30, 2013, author "LACHESIS" published RIPOFF REPORT complaint No.
1005913, the content of which is in line with its title:
62
DR. JOHN PITMAN CHEATS ON WIFE LISA PITMAN WITH RAPPER LACHESIS. DR
JOHN PITMAN BROKE WITH MULTIPLE TAX IRS TAX LIENS, FINANCES VIDEO FOR
LACHESIS WHICH HAS A BRUTAL HOME INVASION MURDER SIMILAR TO THE
HUSBAND CHEATS ON DEAD FISH WIFE LISA PITMAN, ALLISAN TUCKER, TRACEY
RICHTER MURDER TRIAL, SAC COUNTY IOWA WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA."
On January 31, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she was unable to locate
certain information concerning the CHILDREN of one of the Stale's witnesses. TRACEY
RICHTER asked if there was any new news on Dr. John Pitman. ANNA RICHTER said
there was a story on the internet concerning Dr. John Pitman, but ANNA RICHTER thought
it was authored by someone else. ANNA RICHTER said the RIPOFF REPORT article on
Dr. John Pitman was crazy, because it was about Dr. John Pitman having orgies and being
fat. ANNA RICHTER then said something to the following effect: DR. JOHN PITMAN IS
NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MONEY BECAUSE OF THESE RIPOFF REPORT
ARTICLES. TRACEY RICHTER said BERT PITMAN had once said Dr. John Pitman had
orgies. ANNA RICHTER said she was debating whether to publish an add-on complaint I
comment on the RIPOFF REPORT complaints concerning Dr. John Pitman. TRACEY
RICHTER said it would be better if "WE" do not have any personal connection to the
negative stories. ANNA RICHTER claimed she did not know who wrote the "crazy sluff'
about Dr. John Pitman.
On February 5, 2013, DARREN MEADE published RIPOFF REPORT complaint No.
1009000, the subject matter of which is in keeping with its title:
MILE2 MICHAEL ROBERTS REXXFIELD RAYMOND FRIEDMAN" WRITES MILE2
MICHAEL ROBERTS REXXFIELD RAYMOND FRIEDMAN MARIE FRIEDMAN GRAPHIC
DEPICTIONS OF CHILD MOLESTATION, CHILD TORTURE, EXACT RECIPES OF LIQUID
EXPLOSIVES, TYPE BOMBS ILLICIT RECORDINGS, INTERNET.
On February 6, 2013, anonymous author "RAID" published an add-on complaint (rebuttal) to
RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 1009000, the subject matter of which is in keeping with its
title: MICHAEL ROBERTSON RAYMOND FRIEDMAN MADE MILE2 CEASE TO EXIST
OUT OF FEAR OF THE CHILD TORTURE PORN ON YOUR FREE MIGHT PUT US OUT
OF BUSINESS.
On February 7, 2013, TRACEY RICHTER relayed a phone number to ANNA RICHTER
using a code the two developed. The coded message, which was later deciphered, was the
phone number of a school TRACEY RICHTER and RUSSELL SCHERTZ believed one of
her and Michael Roberts' child M.R. was currently attending. TRACEY RICHTER said
RUSSELL SCHERTZ had called the school, but that it would not give him any information
because he was not immediate family. TRACEY RICHTER directed ANNA RICHTER to call
63
the school. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE told her the copy of his deposition that
was given to SCA Smith by Dr. Scott Connelly was fake.
On February 14, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that DONNA BISTRICAN
posted something on Facebook about TRACEY RICHTER's case. TRACEY RICHTER
directed ANNA RICHTER to have BERT PITMAN post something similar on Facebook.
ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE and ED MAG EDSON I RIPOFF REPORT planned
to publish another RIPOFF REPORT complaint [presumably concerning the State's
witnesses]. TRACEY RICHTER said "stuff is coming out about Dr. John Pitman." Then,
just as ANNA RICHTER mentioned DARREN MEADE's name, TRACEY RICHTER directed
her to stop talking about [DARREN MEADE, Dr. John Pitman, and RIPOFF REPORT] over
the phone, and that the two would talk about it in person during ANNA RICHTER's next visit
to the prison. ANNA RICHTER said she had information to pass along to TRACEY
RICHTER from DARREN MEADE, but that she would wait and tell it to TRACEY RICHTER
during her next visit with her at the prison TRACEY RICHTER at the prison. Later during
their conversation, ANNA RICHTER said she stored e-mails from RIPOFF REPORT on her
computer.
On February 17, 2013, TRACEY RICHTER sent a letter to DONNA BISTRICAN asking her
to manage her e-mail, social media, and other online accounts. In this same letter, TRACEY
RICHTER wrote she believed SCA Smith or DCI SA Vileta were linked to her prison
counselor and that her prison counselor had been in contact with someone connected to
[Michael Roberts], but TRACEY RICHTER did not know which one (either SCA Smith or
DCI SA Vileta) because "the FBI [would not] give [her and her family I friends] a name at
this point."
On March 6, 2013, in an add-on complaint (rebuttal) published in RIPOFF REPORT No.
938843, anonymous I fictitious author "BETHANY" made comments generally defaming
MICHAEL ROBERTS. Interestingly, at the bottom of this rebuttal I comment, author
"BETHANY" just so happened to include a link to DARREN MEADE's website
www.cyberbountyhuntersblog.com.
On March 7, 2013, DARREN MEADE published State's witness Michael Roberts' wife's
(Heidi Forsbacka) bank account information on his website cyberbountyhunger.com. The
manner in which this information appeared or was displayed on DARREN MEADE's website
and other circumstances strongly suggest Ms. Forsbacka's banking information was
obtained illegally (i.e., computer hacking). Later, on April 8, 2013, DARREN MEADE sent
an e-mail message wherein he freely admitted possessing and publishing Michael Roberts'
wife's banking information.
On March 22, 2013, BERT PITMAN told TRACEY RICHTER that he planned to give "the
64
addresses to the group."

On April 2, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that she called BERT PITMAN
about an internet article I news story concerning TRACEY RICHTER, which ANNA
RICHTER believed Dr. John Pitman published and I or authored. ANNA RICHTER said
DARREN MEADE had "all kinds of stuff up" in response to this article. ANNA RICHTER
further told TRACEY RICHTER that "this is the last straw" as for Dr. John Pitman, and that
she planned to "fight back." TRACEY RICHTER directed ANNA RICHTER to get DARREN
MEADE to put "all these things together."
On April 2, 2013, ANNA RICHTER and TRACEY RICHTER cryptically discussed State's
witness Mary Higgins. ANNA RICHTER said her and DONNA BISTRICAN recently had a
discussion about State's witness Mary Higgins. The following demonstrates that TRACEY
RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER have been using DONNA BISTRICAN to intimidate State's
witness Mary Higgins since before TRACEY RICHTER's murder trial started.
DONNA BISTRICAN
On September 21, 2011, TRACEY RICHTER wrote the following letter to ANNA RICHTER
from the Sac County Jail:
[State's witness Mary Higgins] is crazy, no wonder [Mary Higgins] didn't have any friends.
[Mary Higgins] needs to get her [medication] adjusted and go to church. Our talk last night
helped me a great deal. Please send my best to [DONNA BISTRICAN]. I miss her. I was also
upset over [Mary Higgins'] comments about [DONNA BISTRICAN]. It was mean spirited and
unnecessary. [DONNA BISTRICAN] doesn't have a mean or dishonest bone in her body.
She never did anything to warrant [Mary Higgins'] cruelness.
In late September 2011 or early October 2011, about three weeks before TRACEY
RICHTER's murder trial started, Mary Higgins was jogging not far from her rural Early, Iowa,
farmstead on the gravel roads on which she always jogged, when she saw a larger than
normal rock lying near the middle of the gravel road. Underneath the rock, Mary Higgins
found a note which said, "DEMON BE GONE." The note also had numbers on it. Mary
Higgins reluctantly provided the above-information to law enforcement out of concern for
her and her family's safety on October 4, 2011.
A Des Moines, Iowa resident since 2010, DONNA BISTRICAN had previously been
neighbors in Early, Iowa. DONNA BISTRICAN is one of TRACEY RICHTER's most loyal,
65
dedicated followers. Information provided to law enforcement suggests DONNA

BISTRICAN was in the Early, Iowa area around the time State's witness Mary Higgins found
this note.
Shortly after Michael Roberts filed for divorce from TRACEY RICHTER, which was on or
around May 7, 2004, DONNA BISTRICAN sent Michael Roberts the following in an e-mail,
which served as an electronic exorcism or "e-exorcism" of Michael Roberts: "In Jesus name
I bind Satan and his DEMONS TO COME OUT OF YOU (Michael Roberts) now and get
away from you (Michael Roberts) now." In a communication to JOHN RICHTER in February
2012, DONNA BISTRICAN admitted to sending this e-mail to Michael Roberts.
Mary Higgins and her family have reported that their farmstead residence has been
burglarized at least five times since TRACEY RICHTER was convicted of murder
(November 7, 2011 ). Following one of these break-ins, the lock from the home's front door
had been removed, reassembled, and placed in the center of their kitchen floor. Another
time they returned home to find their kitchen chairs turned upside-down.
On April 11, 2013, TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER discussed getting Dr. John
Pitman to sign an affidavit swearing the information I statements attributed to him in an
online article In the online UK newspaper "The Daily Mirror" were false. TRACEY RICHTER
told ANNA RICHTER to have BERT PITMAN get Dr. John Pitman to retract these
statements. TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to have BERT PITMAN get certain
information about Michael Roberts and Dr. John Pitman, and give it to either DARREN
MEADE or ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT. ANNA RICHTER said more and more
people "from out there" believed Dr. John Pitman hired Dustin Wehde to attack I kill
TRACEY RICHTER, and that she would discuss it more in detail during her next visit to the
prison. TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to get the password for the laptop in
ANNA RICHTER's possession from her fiance, RUSSELL SCHERTZ.
On April15, 2013, SCA Smith moved to quash a subpoena issued to the Sac County Sheriff
by TRACEY RICHTER in the contempt action she filed in the Buena Vista County, Iowa,
District Court against Michael Roberts for non-payment of child support. In said motion, to
address another like-subpoena TRACEY RICHTER's custody I child support attorney
issued to DARREN MEADE for the "names and individuals that you know have been
threatened by (SCA Smith]," SCA Smith discussed DARREN MEADE's aforementioned
deposition, wherein DARREN MEADE testified he knowingly consorted and conspired with
66
convicted felons to harass and defame a witness in a civil matter. Also included in SCA
Smith's motion was a reference to DARREN MEADE's deposition testimony concerning
RIPOFF REPORT:
RIPOFF REPORT never deletes anything written about somebody. So it's the perfect place
to defame somebody because it will always stay up, and for some reason it winds up ranking
on the first page of Google. So if you want to destroy somebody's reputation, that's a great
place to do it.
On April17, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that she had just gotten off the
phone with an FBI agent. Then the two discussed what TRACEY RICHTER's attorney
needed to subpoena, but agreed they should not talk about it over the phone. ANNA
RICHTER said that "a certain person" would be calling TRACEY RICHTER's child support I
custody attorney, but did not want to tell TRACEY RICHTER who the "someone" was or talk
about the matter over the phone any further.
On or around April 18, 2013, ANNA RICHTER sent DARREN MEADE a Western Union
Money Gram in the amount of $400.00, which he deposited into his Bank of America
account.
On April 18, 2013, DARREN MEADE asked a friend whether the friend knew "someone who
had time to "make one to two videos for [DARREN MEADE] per week." DARREN MEADE
told this person that he had written "two of the scripts and wish to find someone whom could
make the videos have the look and feel of a breaking news story such as CNN did with the
recent bombings in Boston."
On April 25, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she wanted to go after Dr.
John Pitman (or SCA Smith) with a vengeance. TRACEY RICHTER asked ANNA RICHTER
whether "they" are putting certain information into the video [presumably a video about the
State's witnesses]. ANNA RICHTER responded that they should making this video because
she, ANNA RICHTER, had given "them" the information.
On April 30, 2013, an e-mail containing a "non-indexed" link accessing a copy of SCA
Smith's aforementioned Motion to Quash (MTQ) was sent to ED MAGEDSON's e-mail
address (EDitor@ripoffreport.com), which ED MAGEDSON accessed and viewed, then
forwarded to DARREN MEADE, who also accessed and viewed the same. ED
MAGEDSON's viewing SCA Smith's MTQ was at least the second time ED MAGEDSON I
RIPOFF REPORT was made of aware of DARREN MEADE's deposition (SCA Smith's
MTQ referenced and cited DARREN MEADE's deposition) - the same deposition in which
DARREN MEADE testified that RIPOFF REPORT was a "great place to destroy someone's
reputation" and that he was hired by convicted felons to harass and defame a witness via
the internet.
67
"Non-indexed" links (or URL's uniform resource locators") host content which is
intentionally hidden from search engine results pages thus restricting access to the link from
anyone using common search engine tools to discover online content. In this case, the
links could only be accessed (or opened) by directly clicking on the link contained in the
body of an e-mail delivered to a targeted individual. Accessing or clicking the link is
recorded on the server hosting the URL and the server's log files automatically records the
date and time (in GMT) as well as the Geolocation of the IP address of the recipient's
computer used to access their e-mail account. Any such IP recovery data can only be
recorded by those directly receiving the e-mail from the originating sender or those
individuals who are forwarded the e-mail from the intended "target" (or "recipient zero") of
the e-mail. Therefore, the first IP recorded in this instance was traced to ED MAGEDSON,
who then forwarded it to an individual who opened it disclosing an IP address linked to
DARREN MEADE's computer.
On May 5, 2013, TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER discussed the letter TRACEY
RICHTER's child support I custody attorney wrote to the Sac County Board of Supervisors,
wherein said attorney accused SCA Smith of committing a crime and violating an ethical
rule. TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to "feel free to give a copy of the letter to
'someone' if they wanted one." Later, TRACEY RICHTER expressly told ANNA RICHTER
to have DARREN MEADE published the letter on the internet and give a copy of it to
DONNA BISTRICAN.
On May 6, 2013, an e-mail containing a "non-indexed" link to a YouTube video described
below in "The Glenn Puit Disappearing RIPOFF REPORT Complaint" was sent to ED
MAGEDSON's e-mail address (EDitor@ripoffreport.com), which, like the non-indexed link
mentioned above, ED MAGEDSON accessed and viewed, then forwarded to DARREN
MEADE, who accessed and viewed it.
GLENN PUll'S DISAPPEARING RIPOFF REPORT COMPLAINT
Back in January 2012, ED MAGEDSON and DARREN MEADE solicited the services of
investigative journalist Glenn Puit to create what would become RIPOFF REPORT
complaints Nos. 828918 and 829020. The following factual assertions can be taken from
DARREN MEADE's e-mail and other communications to and from ED MAGEDSON and
others between December 2011 through February 2012: ED MAGEDSON paid DARREN
MEADE to work directly with investigative journalist, Glenn Puit. ED MAGEDSON
68
personally directed content edits and changes to Glenn Puit's work. ED MAGEDSON I
RIPOFF REPORT's attorneys reviewed Glenn Puit's complaint before it was published on
RIPOFF REPORT's website. ED MAGEDSON asked that Glenn Puit address specific
issues and allegations against certain individuals in his article. ED MAGEDSON directed
DARREN MEADE to create other RIPOFF REPORT complaints. ED MAGEDSON had
DARREN MEADE edit various RIPOFF REPORT complaints to include certain content so
that these complaints would be more visible and rank higher on internet search results. ED
MAGEDSON suggested that DARREN MEADE format DARREN MEADE's complaints in a
way that would make them more viewer friendly. DARREN MEADE told investigative
journalist Glenn Puit the only way ED MAGEDSON would allow certain audio I visual
content to appear in journalist's complaint is through DARREN MEADE and if the articles
were beneficial to RIPOFF REPORT's interests. ED MAGEDSON directed DARREN
MEADE to "create new titles for the preexisting derogatory RIPOFF REPORT complaints
about DARREN MEADE. ED MAGEDSON promised to "optimize" them so that existing
unfavorable RIPOFF REPORT complaint(s) about DARREN MEADE would be effectively
removed from the internet.
On January 11, 2012, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT paid DARREN MEADE
$2,500.00 (check No. 002498) with the memo "[Public Relations] thru Feb 151h 2012."
On January 23, 2012, when asked whether Glenn Puit's anticipated RIPOFF REPORT
complaint would be a "featured" RIPOFF REPORT complaint, DARREN MEADE said: "I
don't believe the first article will be linked on every page, [because there was] no benefit to
ROR."
As mentioned earlier, on January 26, 2012, Journalist Glenn Puit, published RIPOFF
REPORT complaint No. 829020. The original report's headline was simply "COMPLAINT
REVIEW: GOOGLE-CIDE: THE FULL STORY PROGENEX LEADERS ADAM
ZUCKERMAN, RYAN PAGE," and the title's first sentence read: "PROGENEX MANAGERS
ADAM STUART ZUCKERMAN AND RYAN PAGE NEGOTIATE CONTRACT WITH
REXXFIELD ONLINE REPUTATION MANAGEMENT MICHAEL ROBERTS IN ATTEMPT
TO COMMERCIALIZE INJECTION SOURCE CODE." The article was a damning account
of the criminal activities of convicted felons ADAM ZUCKERMAN and KIRK MCMAHAN
described earlier herein.
Glenn Puit's original RIPOFF REPORT complaint here was originally published and was
located
at
the
following
URL
address:
http://www.ripoffreport.comlbusinessconsu Ita ntslgoog le-cide-the-fu lllgoogle-cide-the-fu ll-story-b3660. htm
Sometime on or after March 13, 2012 but before April 30, 2013, ED MAG EDSON or another
RIPOFF REPORT agent created an unauthorized duplicate copy of Glenn Puit's article and
69
therein effected subtle changes with the clear intent of increasing harm done to Michael
Roberts. The following is the new URL for the duplicated I edited RIPOFF REPORT
com plaint:
http://www. ripoffreport. com/riM ichaei-Roberts-Rexxfield-Google-cide-The-FuiiStory-Progenex-leaders-Adam-Stuart-Zuckerman-Ryan-PageiCosta-Mesa-California926261Michaei-Roberts-Rexxfield-Progenex-Managers-Adam-Zuckerman-and-Ryan-Pagenegotiate-contr-829020
On May 27, 2014, ED MAGEDSON or another RIPOFF REPORT agent made substantive
changes to the article in that he changed both the heading and sub-heading to draw more
attention to Michael Roberts and his business, Rexxfield. The headline was changed to
following: "COMPLAINT REVIEW: MICHAEL ROBERTS, REXXFIELD, GOOGLE-CIDE:
THE FULL STORY PROGENEX LEADERS ADAM STUART ZUCKERMAN, RYAN PAGE";
and the first sentence of the title was changed to: "MICHAEL ROBERTS, REXXFIELD,
PROGENEX MANAGERS ADAM ZUCKERMAN AND RYAN PAGE NEGOTIATE
CONTRACT WITH REXXFIELD ONLINE REPUTATION MANAGEMENT MICHAEL
ROBERTS IN ATTEMPT TO COMMERCIALIZE INJECTION SOURCE CODE."
The changes made by RIPOFF REPORT administrators to the duplicated article's subheading I title and URL serve no purpose except to increase the damage done to Michael
Roberts. The extra emphasis on Michael Roberts' personal name and business name in
both the sub-heading I title and more conspicuously, in the URL, is clearly an attempt by
RIPOFF REPORT to use generally accepted "Search Engine Optimization" techniques in
order to persuade Google and other search engines to elevate this RIPOFF REPORT
complaint in search results for Michael Roberts' name.
On or about April 30, 2013 SCA Smith discovered the unauthorized derivative of Glenn
Puit's original article. Thereafter, journalist Glenn Puit was notified about the change. After
learning of the change, Glenn Puit contacted ED MAG EDSON directly to protest the issue.
Shortly thereafter, ED MAG EDSON or an agent of RIPOFF REPORT deleted the new URL.
These facts were memorialized by Michael Roberts in the form of a YouTube "screen cast"
video, which clearly establishes both the existence of the unauthorized article and its
subsequent deletion.
The evidence suggests that when ED MAGEDSON learned of this YouTube video, he or
one of RIPOFF REPORT's agents restored the deleted page so that it would not result in an
error message displaying the phrase "The resource you are looking for has been removed,
had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable," which is what was displayed after ED
MAGEDSON deleted the original article and had the original URL redirect to the new
unauthorized version.
This change of URL and redirection provision is evidenced by Glenn Puit's RIPOFF
70
REPORT complaint No. 828918, which still references the old URL with the following quote:
"To read my second story on this matter that delves into allegations of computer hacking,
please go to http://www.ripoffreport.com/business-consultants/google-cide-the-full/googlecide-the-fu 11-story-b3660. htm"
The aforementioned changes to Glenn Puit's initial RIPOFF REPORT effectively thrust
Michael Roberts into the role DARREN MEADE played in his and ADAM ZUCKERMAN's
organization's ongoing criminal enterprise discussed earlier.
On May 7, 2013, one day after ED MAGEDSON and DARREN MEADE accessed and
viewed the link to Michael Roberts' YouTube screencast, which proved ED MAGEDSON or
another RIPOFF REPORT agent removed and republished an amended RIPOFF REPORT
complaint, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that SCA Smith was attempting to
intimidate DARREN MEADE by going through ED MAGEDSON. TRACEY RICHTER told
ANNA RICHTER that DARREN MEADE needed to send "sluff."
On May 17, 2013, an e-mail containing a "non-indexed" link accessing a copy of DARREN
MEADE's February 28, 2011, e-mail to MATTHEW COOKE, in which DARREN MEADE
sought to enforce his purported right to acquire the exclusive rights to the highly illegal
hacking technology that he and ADAM ZUCKERMAN used to remove RIPOFF REPORT
complaints for profit. ED MAG EDSON accessed and viewed this e-mail and then forwarded
the same to DARREN MEADE who also accessed and viewed it. This e-mail
communication provided ED MAGEDSON unimpeachable evidence that in 2011 his I
RIPOFF REPORT employee and BFF, DARREN MEADE, tried to purchase the very
hacking technology DARREN MEADE told ED MAGEDSON and the FBI was used to hack
RIPOFF REPORT's servers and remove RIPOFF REPORT complaints.
On May 28, 2013, an e-mail containing a "non-indexed" link accessing a copy of a February
20, 2011, e-mail message from DARREN MEADE to convicted felon ADAM ZUCKERMAN
was sent to ED MAGEDSON, who accessed and viewed it and then forwarded the same to
DARREN MEADE, who also accessed and viewed it. In this e-mail, which DARREN
MEADE gave the subject heading, "Conspiracy Theory Gone Wild," DARREN MEADE
suggested he and ADAM ZUCKERMAN's organization begin publicly accusing Michael
Roberts of being criminally responsible for Dustin Wehde's murder (i.e., Michael Roberts
hired Dustin Wehde to murder TRACEY RICHTER, which resulted in TRACEY RICHTER
defending herself by shooting Dustin Wehde nine times and killing him) to "pressure" and
intimidate Michael Roberts into handing his business over to DARREN MEADE and ADAM
71
ZUCKERMAN. Towards the end of his e-mail to convicted felon ADAM ZUCKERMAN,
DARREN MEADE suggested that he and ADAM ZUCKERMAN get together to devise how
to "play this card" against Michael Roberts. DARREN MEADE sent this e-mail to ADAM
ZUCKERMAN around the same time DARREN MEADE, TRACEY RICHTER, ANNA
RICHTER, and RUSSELL SCHERTZ alleged DARREN MEADE provided Iowa Jaw
enforcement with information implicating Michael Roberts in Dustin Wehde's murder. The
information contained in this e-mail, which computer forensics proved was viewed by ED
MAGEDSON, is contrary to that contained in almost all of ED MAGEDSON's, DARREN
MEADE's, and the anonymous authors' RIPOFF REPORT complaints about Michael
Roberts and the State's witnesses, and also contrary to DARREN MEADE's deposition,
which, as discussed above, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT and at least one of
RIPOFF REPORT's attorney were well aware of as early as January 2012.
On June 6, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that DARREN MEADE wanted
TRACEY RICHTER to provide him with the location of sensitive, embarrassing information
concerning a family member of one of Michael Roberts' former employees. DARREN
MEADE subsequently posted this information on RIPOFF REPORT. ANNA RICHTER also
said DARREN MEADE had sent her (ANNA RICHTER) some information I documents, but
that she would discuss it with TRACEY RICHTER in person during their next prison visit.
ANNA RICHTER also told TRACEY RICHTER that in his Motion to Quash, SCA Smith was
"moaning" that "they" had given information I documents to DARREN MEADE. TRACEY
RICHTER said most of the information ANNA RICHTER had given to DARREN MEADE
was given to her (TRACEY RICHTER) during her murder prosecution. ANNA RICHTER
said most of the information DARREN MEADE obtained was from the internet, and
sometimes DARREN MEADE asked her for information about which she knew nothing.
On July 4, 2013, DARREN MEADE published a video titled "Michael Roberts Rexxfield
RIPOFF REPORT Google 60 Minutes Australia". Therein, DARREN MEADE asserted
Michael Roberts' custody battle was a hoax, that Michael Roberts orchestrated the "home
invasion," which resulted in Dustin Wehde's murder, and that Michael Roberts "confessed
the real motive" of the home invasion to DARREN MEADE once upon a time.
On June 13, 2013 (or June 6, 2013}, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that ED
MAGEDSON received a copy of SCA Smith's Motion to Quash, and that ED MAGEDSON
forwarded the same to DARREN MEADE. TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER "they"
had proof SCA Smith obtained the transcripts from DARREN MEADE's aforementioned
deposition, and that SCA Smith cannot use the power of his office to do this. TRACEY
RICHTER continued, stating neither "they" nor DARREN MEADE had done anything
criminal, and SCA Smith was attacking DARREN MEADE for merely exercising his First
72
Amendment rights. Amazingly, however, TRACEY RICHTER then said SCA Smith could
have an actionable civil defamation claim against ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT and
I or DARREN MEADE, but neither of ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT and I or
DARREN MEADE had done anything actionable in the criminal sense.
On June 29, 2013, DARREN MEADE sent the following e-mail to ANNA RICHTER:
Everyone, I have had enough of all the threats from Michael Roberts and Ben Smith. Every
three-four days I will be releasing video's showing the true character of Michael and
Benjamin. I hope the tone of the first video is not offensive to anyone. I plan to release one
on Ben by Monday morning. I never made a video presentation in my life therefore I know
the video maybe lacking a bit. Here is a link to the first video:
http://www.screencast.com/UAqlqBnFcL
On July 2, 2013, TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to give certain documents to
"you know who." ANNA RICHTER stated she already had given them to him. [The context
of this conversation suggests DARREN MEADE is the unnamed individual] ANNA
RICHTER then stated she located documents about Mona Wehde, the murder victim's
mother, and Dr. John Pitman, both of whom were State's witnesses. TRACEY RICHTER
directed ANNA RICHTER to give the information to this unnamed individual.
On July 11, 2013, after receiving the transcript of SCA Smith's testimony from her and
Michael Roberts' custody proceedings, which, much to their dismay, proved SCA Smith did
not commit perjury as TRACEY RICHTER, ANNA RICHTER, DARREN MEADE and ED
MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT had been alleging on RIPOFF REPORT, TRACEY
RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER that the she still believed SCA Smith committed perjury.
ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that the court reporter who reported the
proceedings was "dirty."
On July 18, 2013, ANNA RICHTER played DARREN MEADE's July 4, 2013, video
presentation, which is mentioned above, over the phone for TRACEY RICHTER. After
listening to the video, TRACEY RICHTER commented that DARREN MEADE did not do a
bad job with the video presentation and that he would get better.
On July 25, 2013, TRACEY RICHTER asked ANNA RICHTER whether there was any new
information, documents, or material [on RIPOFF REPORT]. ANNA RICHTER stated there
was one thing online that was new, but that she wanted to wail and discuss it with TRACEY
RICHTER during their next visit at the prison because "they" might be listening to TRACEY
RICHTER's phone calls.
On July 27, 2013, TRACEY RICHTER told BERT PITMAN to create a YouTube channel for
ANNA RICHTER. TRACEY RICHTER said that YouTube shows up pretty high in internet
73
search results. BERT PITMAN told TRACEY RICHTER he wanted nothing to do with Dr.
John Pitman. TRACEY RICHTER told BERT PITMAN to "keep his eye on the prize."
On July 30, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that she got a preview of
"another thing" that DARREN MEADE told ANNA RICHTER was going to published on the
internet. ANNA RICHTER said she wrote [DARREN MEADE] back and told him the
proposed video content was good. TRACEY RICHTER said some of the State's witnesses
lied when they testified against her. ANNA RICHTER said they need to go after the State's
witnesses because they lied on the witness stand. ANNA RICHTER said they were going to
prove State's witnesses Mary Higgins and Mona Wehde committed perjury when they
testified against TRACEY RICHTER. TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER they
needed an affidavit from "the woman" who alleged Dr. John Pitman lied on the witness
stand.
On August 11, 2013 at 12:18 p.m. PST, DARREN MEADE left the following voicemail for
Daniel Danino (dba OC PC Services):
Hi Daniel, my name is Darren, I'm in Huntington Beach, I have a laptop that is not working
and I needed to get it fixed today, Sunday. Can you please let me know if you have anytime
today to work on a laptop. Again, I'm in Huntington Beach. My cellphone number is (949)
357-6193 again. That's (949) 357-6193. Thank you.
After this, DARREN MEADE paid OC PC Services $90.00 to for computer maintenance
services. DARREN MEADE gave Daniel Danino the address of 711 Pacific Coast Hwy,
Huntington Beach, California, to attend to the repairs. The repairs needed more work,
Daniel Danino took the laptop back to his office. DARREN MEADE did not pick up his
computer.
On August 22, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she believed that Michael
Roberts lied on his immigration paperwork from 1996. TRACEY RICHTER asked ANNA
RICHTER whether she had sent this information to "somebody else." ANNA RICHTER
stated she was not sure, but that she would fax it over to "that person." TRACEY RICHTER
asked whether she sent that document to "that someone else." ANNA RICHTER stated
"they never checked on the alibi of you know who."
On August 28, 2013, Ripoffreport.com complaint No. 1079952 was published about Daniel
Isaac Danino (dba OC PC Services), and his mother Roberta Danino. Said complaint
accuses them of crimes, mental health issues, and other derogatory I criminal conduct.
Additional demeaning comments and photos of these victims were added to this RIPOFF
REPORT complaint on August 29, 2013, September 3, 2013, September 05, 2013, and
September 7, 2013
74
On August 29, 2013, Dr. John Pitman's office received a call from a male who identified
himself as Ryan. Ryan informed Dr. John Pitman's administrative assistant, Tina Allen, that
he worked for RIPOFF REPORT and, for $10,000, could remove all the derogatory
complaints on RIPOFF REPORT about Dr. John Pitman, including the RIPOFF REPORT
complaints DARREN MEADE has admitted to authoring and publishing on RIPOFF
REPORT. On May 19, 2014, RIPOFF REPORT I XCENTRIC VENTURES wrote a check to
a RYAN DUCA. Tina Allen memorialized the substance of this conversation in an affidavit
and provided the same to SCA Smith.
On September 4, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that Dr. John Pitman
would rather spend money on a prostitute I stripper than care for [his son, BERT PITMAN]."
On September 4, 2013, another RIPOFF REPORT complaint about Daniel Danino and
Roberta Danino (dba OC PC Services) was published. This complaint alleged Daniel
Danino committed various crimes. The report was later augmented with additional
comments, photos of the victims, and criminal allegations on September 13, 2013,
September 21, 2013 and October 17, 2013.
Between September 5, 2013, and September 13, 2013, DARREN MEADE transmitted
hundreds of phone calls and text messages to Daniel Danino's mobile phone.
On September 5, 2013 (9:39 a.m.), SIAMACK YAGHOBI (Siamack.Yaghobi@gmail.com)
pitched the following in a RIPOFF REPORT CAP I VP sales e-mail to a prospective
RIPOFF REPORT CAP customer (RIPOFF REPORT victim I subject), and copied in ED
MAG EDSON I RIPOFF REPORT (EDitor@ripoffreport.com) on the e-mail as well:
We see you have complaints on [www.pissedconsumer.com]. if, [sic] for some reason they
come before Ripoff Report on a search ... [sic] and the business (like yours) is a member of
one of our programs, at our request, they should be removing it at our request. Why? .. this
[sic] was part of an out of courrt [sic] settlement when Ripoff Report caught them stealing
thousands of Reports.
On September 5, 2013 (7:25 p.m.), ED MAGEDSON (EDitor@ripoffreport.com) sent the
following reply to SIAMACK YAGHOBI (Siamack.Yaghobi@gmail.com): "You need to
REMOVE the paragraph I have in Yellow [sic] highlight if there are no Reports on them on
[www.pissedconsumer.com]!!!"
RIPOFF REPORT sued Opinion Corp (dba Pissed Consumer I www.pisssedconsumer) on
October 7, 2008, In the United States District Court of Arizona (Case No. 2:08-CV-01841JAT). In its complaint, RIPOFF REPORT referred to Pissed Consumer as its direct
competitor). It appears that on or around December 8, 2008, the parties (RIPOFF REPORT
and Pissed Consumer) entered into a settlement agreement, which enjoined Pissed
Consumer from stealing or "scraping" and publishing RIPOFF REPORT complaints on
75
Pissed Consumer's website

(www.pissedconsumer.com) and dismissed RIPOFF
REPORT's complaint, which asked for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and
attorneys' fees, with prejudice.
Evidence obtained by law enforcement demonstrates that Pissed Consumer complaints
concerning RIPOFF REPORT employees and I or individuals who were I are not RIPOFF
REPORT CAP or VP members, were removed by Pissed Consumer (again, RIPOFF
REPORT's direct competitor) at ED MAGEDSON's I RIPOFF REPORT's direction,
assumedly pursuant to this settlement agreement.
On September 12, 2013, another RIPOFF REPORT complaint about Daniel Danino and
Roberta Danino (dba OC PC Services), was published. This complaint I article accuses
Daniel Danino, the company's owner, and his family of sex offenses, scams, lewd behavior,
robbery, and the rape of a female student. Subsequent to this RIPOFF REPORT complaint,
Daniel Danino demanded that DARREN MEADE remove the aforementioned
Ripoffreport.com complaints. DARREN MEADE responded by demanding a fee of
$7,000.00 for the removal of the Ripoffreport.com pages, and for compensation for
DARREN MEADE's laptop, which DARREN MEADE had never retrieved. Daniel Danino
agreed only to a refund DARREN MEADE's $90.00 and return the laptop, which he would
hold until DARREN MEADE deleted the aforementioned defamatory RIPOFF REPORT
complaints.
On September 17, 2013, SIAMACK YAGHOBI wrote the following in an email to a
prospective RIPOFF REPORT customer (victim), which he blind copied to ED MAG EDSON
I RIPOFF REPORT: "We work extremely closely with Google and occasionally our list of
links don't work because Google consistently changes their 'search links."' Minutes later, ED
MAGEDSON wrote the following to SIAMACK YAGHOBI in response:
We don't work closely with Google!!!! Don't ever say that!!!!!!. See, what that is, is, ...
GOOGLE CHANGES THEIR ALGORITHMS ALL THE TIME .. BUT, RIPOFF REPORT
STILL STAYS AT THE TOP OF THE SEARCH ENGINES. Never say we are in good with
Google. Search engines know us for over 16 years now- and consider us a good source of
information for consumers.
SIAMACK YAGHOBI wrote the following in response to ED MAGEDSON's admonishment:

"1 0-4 boss."
On September 25, 2013, RIPOFF REPORT filed a lawsuit against Michael Roberts and his
business entities. The case was filed in the Superior Court of Arizona, County of Maricopa
[Case No. CV2013-012936]. In its complaint, RIPOFF REPORT alleged Michael Roberts
had wrongfully I tortuously interfered with RIPOFF REPORT business' interests.
Specifically, RIPOFF REPORT alleged that the boycott of RIPOFF REPORT lead and
76
organized by Michael Roberts through Michael Roberts' websites authorizedstatement.org

and badforpeople.com, which efforts Michael Roberts has asserted were in response to the
defamatory attacks against himself and others. Later, on or around November 18, 2013,
following the hearing on RIPOFF REPORT's request to enjoin Michael Roberts' boycott, the
Court found that everything in AuthorizedStatement.org and BadForPeople.com was
protected speech" and denied RIPOFF REPORT's request for a preliminary injunction. Your
applicant was informed that RIPOFF REPORT introduced evidence in these proceedings
that demonstrated Michael Roberts' boycott negatively impacted RIPOFF REPORT's
advertising revenue.
On September 26, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that ED MAGEDSON
filed a lawsuit against Michael Roberts. TRACEY RICHTER stated she cannot imagine ED
MAGEDSON would be intimidated by Michael Roberts. ANNA RICHTER said Michael
Roberts had made ED MAGEDSON angry.
On September 30, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she was waiting for
information and I or documents from DARREN MEADE, but that DARREN MEADE had
been busy the last couple days helping RIPOFF REPORT owner ED MAGEDSON prepare
for his civil action against Michael Roberts. ANNA RICHTER said ED MAGEDSON is going
after Michael Roberts for extortion, and is taking out a protective order against Michael
Roberts and SCA Smith because the two were harassing him (ED MAGEDSON). ANNA
RICHTER said she found a document TRACEY RICHTER had asked her to find while she
was searching for documents I information for ED MAGEDSON. TRACEY RICHTER said
she had something to tell ANNA RICHTER about ED MAGEDSON, and that ED
MAGEDSON had a bunch of stuff on Michael Roberts. ANNA RICHTER said she was
supposed to get information to ED MAGEDSON and DARREN MEADE about Michael
Roberts. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE told her he had to work on ED
MAGEDSON's case first, but when he finished with that, he would go back to working for
TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER's cause. ANNA RICHTER said that when "WE"
put stuff on RIPOFF REPORT "WE" provide documentation.
On September 30, 2013, TRACEY RICHTER directed ANNA RICHTER to perform certain
tasks on TRACEY RICHTER's or ANNA RICHTER's computer in real-time. ANNA
RICHTER said ED MAGEDSON and I or DARREN MEADE wanted her to ask TRACEY
RICHTER whether she (TRACEY RICHTER) was familiar with an individual ANNA
RICHTER named. ANNA RICHTER and TRACEY RICHTER both stated that Mona Wehde,
the mother of the boy Tracey murdered, was once involved with Michael Roberts and drug
dealers from Sioux City, Iowa.
On October 1, 2013, DARREN MEADE published RIPOFF REPORT complaint No.
77
1088535, which contained defamatory statements about State's witness Michael Roberts
and his wife Dr. Heidi Roberts (aka Heidi Forsbacka). The title of DARREN MEADE's
RIPOFF REPORT complaint here is as follows:
AUTHORIZED STATEMENT, BAD FOR PEOPLE, MICHAEL ROBERTS REXXFIELD,
SCAM GROUP, RIPOFF SCAM TO ED MAGEDSON RIPOFF REPORT, SAC COUNTY
ATTORNEY BEN SMITH, 60 MINUTES AUSTRALIA, HEIDI ROBERTS, JANICE DUFFY
CHECK BOOK JOURNALISM, DIGITAL ASSASSINS, RIPOFF, CHECKBOOK
JOURNALISM, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, NINEMSN FRAUD, GOLD COAST
On October 3, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she (or they) had obtained
e-mail communications between Michael Roberts and his wife, Heidi Forsbacka. Michael
Roberts told law enforcement that no one other than he or his wife should have copies of
correspondence between him and his wife.
On October 10, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that DARREN MEADE had
recently sent her information. TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER "thank God
[DARREN MEADE] is involved." ANNA RICHTER relayed a question from DARREN
MEADE to TRACEY RICHTER about State's witness Mona Wehde.
On October 13, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that ED MAGEDSON
asked ANNA RICHTER to tell TRACEY RICHTER to report the results of her custody I child
support proceeding with Michael Roberts, back to ANNA RICHTER, so that ANNA
RICHTER could relay the same to ED MAGEDSON. TRACEY RICHTER asked ANNA
RICHTER whether "there was anyone else who wanted her lawyer to ask a specific
question of Michael Roberts while he was under oath." ANNA RICHTER said she had
already discussed this possibility with TRACEY RICHTER's fiance, RUSSELL SCHERTZ.
On October 15, 2013, SIAMACK YAGHOBI (siamack.yaghobi@gmail.com) wrote the
following in an e-mail to his "boss," ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT
(EDitor@ripoffreport.com): "Would you consider creating a sam@ripoffreport.com email
address? Do u agree it to enhance professionalism, and [great] results on hearing back
from prospects?"
On October 17, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she found out that Michael
Roberts had never been an FBI informant. TRACEY RICHTER asked whether they could
get tangible proof that Michael Roberts had never been an FBI informant. ANNA RICHTER
said the information was from a "very reliable source," and she would get more information
about this once "she [got] some other stuff back." Later, ANNA RICHTER said the
information came from an FBI SA. ANNA RICHTER said ED MAG EDSON wanted TRACEY
RICHTER to report the outcome of her custody hearing to ANNA RICHTER, so that ANNA
RICHTER could relay the same to ED MAGEDSON. ANNA RICHTER said ED
78
MAGEDSON had given her documents to give to TRACEY RICHTER, and that she would
be sending them to TRACEY RICHTER. TRACEY RICHTER said "someone" had been
trying to contact ANNA RICHTER, but that this "someone" must not have ANNA RICHTER's
correct e-mail address. TRACEY RICHTER said she would have her fiance, RUSSELL
SCHERTZ, check with this "someone" tomorrow to see if the "someone" had ANNA
RICHTER's correct contact information. TRACEY RICHTER said ANNA RICHTER knew
this "someone."
On October 18, 2013, TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to tell ED MAGEDSON
that Michael Roberts was served with that "thing" (ED MAGEDSON's I RIPOFF REPORT
lawsuit against Michael Roberts) when he appeared at the Buena Vista County Courthouse
for their hearing on the contempt I child support matters.
On October 19, 2013, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT issued SIAMACK YAGHOBI
the following e-mail address: sam@ripoffreport.com
On Sunday, October 20, 2013, 9:15p.m. PST, SIAMACK YAGHOBI sent an e-mail from
siamack.yaghobi@gmail.com to ED MAGEDSON's e-mail addres EDitor@ripoffreport.com,
with the subject heading "OC PC contact#" and message body that simply read: "Daniel
Danino 714-869-####" Approximately 10 minutes later, (9:26 p.m. PST), ED MAGEDSON
replied from EDitor@ripoffreport.com: "You would text this to me once you are maybe on
your way in that area- if you said, ED< I am about 1 or 2 hours away- check to see if he
will be there.. I will do that." ED MAGEDSON's above-reply proves he was an active
principal in this scheme to extort Danino. Ten minutes later, SIAMACK YAGHOBI
acknowledged Magedson's e-mail instructions with a simple e-mail reply: "Ok sounds good"
On October 21, 2013, at 1:19:15 p.m. PST, SIAMACK YAGHOBI initiated a call from cell
phone number (949) 600-0673 to Daniel Danino's mobile phone, which is (714) 869-1660.
According to Daniel Danino, the pretext for this call was that SAM YOUBANKS, needed to
give multiple laptops to Daniel Danino for repair. Daniel Danino did not know at the time
SIAMACK YAGHOBI was associated with DARREN MEADE. This same day, sometime
after 1:00 p.m. PST, SIAMACK YAGHOBI arrived at Daniel Danino's gated estate without
any computers for repair and identified himself to Daniel Danino as "SAM YOUBANKS."
SIAMACK YAGHOBI revealed that he was a business partner of DARREN MEADE and
was there to collect DARREN MEADE's laptop. Daniel Danino told SIAMACK YAGHOBI he
needed the three above-mentioned RIPOFF REPORT complaints I articles concerning
Danino's family and business removed. SIAMACK YAGHOBI then made a call to an
unknown person. After that, SIAMACK YAGHOBI told Daniel Danino that the three RIPOFF
REPORT complaints about Daniel Danino, his family, and business had been removed.
Daniel Danino checked RIPOFF REPORT for these three complaints, and after observing
79
they had in fact been removed, Daniel Danino gave SIAMACK YAGHOBI DARREN
MEADE's laptop computer.
On October 21, 2013 at 2:00:15 P.M. PST, SIAMACK YAGHOBI initiated a call from cell
phone number (949) 600-0673 to (714) 869-1660 which belongs to Daniel Danino, the call
lasted 29 seconds. On October 21, 2013 at 2:00:56 P.M. PST, SIAMACK YAGHOBI
initiated a call from cell phone number (949) 600-0673 to (602) 518-4357 which belongs to
ED MAGEDSON, the call lasted 24 seconds.
On October 21, 2013 at 2:04:57 P.M. PST, SIAMACK YAGHOBI initiated a call from cell
phone number (949) 600-0673 to 714-869-1660 which belongs to Daniel Danino, the call
lasted 28 seconds.
On October 21, 2013 at 2:04:57 P.M. PST, ED MAGEDSON initiated a call from his Leap
Wireless cell phone number (602) 518-4357 to SIAMACK YAGHOBI's Metro PCS cell
phone number, (949) 600-0673. This call lasted 4 minutes 45 seconds.
On October 21, 2013 at 2:28:29 P.M. PST, SIAMACK YAGHOBI initiated a call from his
Metro PCS cell phone number (949) 600-0673 to (602) 518-4357, which belongs to ED
MAGEDSON. This call lasted 39 seconds.
On October 21, 2013 at 2:36:50 P.M. PST, SIAMACK YAGHOBI initiated a call from his
Metro PCS cell phone number (949) 600-0673 to ED MAGEDSON's phone, (602) 5184357. This call lasted 1:57 minutes.
On October 21, 2013 at 3:02:15 P.M. PST, ED MAGEDSON initiated a call from his Leap
Wireless cell phone number 6025184357 to (949) 600-0673 which belongs to SIAMACK
YAGHOBI, the call lasted 6 minutes 38 seconds.
On October 21, 2013, RIPOFF REPORT deleted the three defamatory pages (complaints
Nos. 1079952, 1081741 and 1084023). The removal of these complaints were carried out,
presumably, at the direction of ED MAGEDSON in an attempt to coerce Daniel Danino into
complying with DARREN MEADE's extortion demands.
On October 21, 2013, there were seven calls and eight text messages between DARREN
MEADE's cell phone (949) 357-6193 and ED MAGEDSON's cell phone (602) 518-4357
Later, on Oct 21 2013, after SIAMACK YAGHOBI retrieved DARREN MEADE's computer
from Danino, and after SIAMACK YAGHOBI and ED MAGEDSON had exchanged phone
calls, the three aforementioned RIPOFF REPORT complaints concerning Daniel Danino
and his family were republished as follows: complaints No. 1084023 at 04:42 P.M. (UTC07:00), complaints No. 1081741 at 07:25P.M. (UTC-07:00) and complaints No. 1079952 at
10:40 P.M. (UTC-07:00)
80
On October 24, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she was not certain
whether anything came out during the contempt proceedings that would be helpful to ED
MAGEDSON. ANNA RICHTER said TRACEY RICHTER's custody I child support attorney
gave ANNA RICHTER permission for ED MAGEDSON to call the attorney on his mobile
phone. TRACEY RICHTER directed ANNA RICHTER to get certain information from ED
MAGEDSON about Michael Roberts.
On October 25, 2013, ED MAGEDSON (EDitor@ripoffreport.com) directed SIAMACK
YAGHOBI to make a "sales" call to (757) 232-5580, which is the phone number of Dr. John
Pitman's plastic surgery practice in Virginia.
On October 28, 2013, in response to SIAMACK YAGHOBI's request for ED MAG EDSON to
pay SIAMACK YAGHOBI's cell phone bill, ED MAGEDSON wrote him the following:
"[SIAMACK YAGHOBI], Just pay it - I will reimburse you with the $200 - this week. IF I
PAY [YOUR CELL PHONE BILL], IT THEN CONNECTS WITH MEl DON'T WANT
THAT!"
On October 31, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she had scanned a
number of documents, which she planned to send to "someone." ANNA RICHTER told
TRACEY RICHTER she learned Dr. John Pitman was back with a stripper and that Dr. John
Pitman lied under oath when he testified in his deposition in TRACEY RICHTER's murder
case. ANNA RICHTER said she finally got contact information "on a certain person" form
"someone." ANNA RICHTER said she printed off documents concerning another case
involving ED MAGEDSON, and that ED MAGEDSON had to remove "something" from
RIPOFF REPORT, but that "something" did not have anything to do with TRACEY
RICHTER's case and I or DARREN MEADE's and the other RIPOFF REPORT complaint's
concerning the State's witnesses.
On November 3, 2013, SIAMACK YAGHOBI wrote the following in an e-mail to a Sarah (1
stakla@gmail.com), which he copied to DARREN MEADE: "Hi Sarah, So grateful we met
as well as being able to introduce you to [DARREN MEADE]. I'm looking forward to the
great fruitfulness to this relationship between all of us, especially in support of and for
justice for [TRACEY RICHTER]. Wishing you two a great weekend."
It is important to note that DARREN MEADE testified in his aforementioned deposition that
he and Adam Zuckerman hired I recruited freelance writers or bloggers from fiverr.com and
other places to "back-link" or "push" defamatory internet stories about Dr. Scott Connelly
onto different article directories, which would effectively turn one defamatory article I post
about Dr. Scott Connelly, into hundreds. DARREN MEADE also testified that he and Adam
Zuckerman hired a number of people to dig up and publish defamatory information about
Dr. Scott Connelly and another individual adverse to their criminal organization, with the
Bl
intent to "destroy [their businesses and reputations) and make it so [they) were unable to
have gainful employment." The information contained in this affidavit clearly demonstrates
that DARREN MEADE and ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT are doing the same thing
to the State's witnesses that DARREN MEADE and his and Adam Zuckerman's criminal
organization did to Dr. Scott Connelly in 2010.
On or around November 5, 2013, pursuant to their ongoing divorce proceedings, Dr. John
Pitman was served with a request for production of documents by his estranged wife, Lisa
Pitman. Numbered paragraph twenty-one of the request asked Dr. John Pitman to produce
"each and every letter, e-mail communication, or any other written correspondence of any
nature between [Dr. John Pitman] and Michael Roberts from the date of [Dr. John Pitman's
marriage Lisa Pitman] to the current date, omitting nothing." Dr. John Pitman told SCA
Smith he did not have any such evidence to produce, and that neither he nor his attorney
could think of any reason why the information described in this interrogatory would be
relevant in any way to his and Lisa Pitman's divorce I custody proceedings.
The information contained in this affidavit demonstrates that TRACEY RICHTER and her
friends and family routinely hijack other people's civil discovery processes to fit her I their
own ends and needs. Question No. 21 from the request for production served on Dr. John
Pitman appears to be just another example of this. As discussed earlier, TRACEY
RICHTER had ANNA RICHTER asked ED MAG EDSON whether ED MAG EDSON had any
questions TRACEY RICHTER's custody I child support attorney should ask Michael
Roberts. At the time TRACEY RICHTER offered this to ED MAGEDSON, ED MAGEDSON
was suing Michael Roberts in Arizona. On February 8, 2014, during a prison visit, ANNA
RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that ED MAGEDSON had been after ANNA RICHTER
to do something, and that ED MAGEDSON (or his attorney) had e-mailed TRACEY
RICHTER's attorney to see if there was a way TRACEY RICHTER's attorney could obtain
Michael Roberts's mental health therapist's confidential notes I reports made during I
following Michael Roberts' therapy session from 2003 and 2004. TRACEY RICHTER told
ANNA RICHTER to have her custody I child support attorney to subpoena Michael Roberts'
confidential therapy notes and tell said attorney it is related to the custody stuff. ANNA
RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that getting Michael Roberts' confidential therapy notes I
reports to ED MAGEDSON would "really help [ED MAGEDSON) in his lawsuit against
Michael Roberts." Later, during a prison visit between TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA
RICHTER on February 28, 2014, ANNA RICHTER said ED MAGEDSON's attorney and
one of TRACEY RICHTER's PCR attorneys were communicating for the purpose of sharing
I obtaining information about Michael Roberts. Another example, as discussed above, on
March 9, 2014, TRACEY RICHTER directed ANNA RICHTER to give ED MAGEDSON a list
of the information ED MAGEDSON should request of Michael Roberts in their civil case in
82
Arizona about Michael Roberts's wife, Heidi Forsbacka (aka Heidi Roberts). TRACEY
RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER that Michael Roberts might "back off' if ED MAGEDSON
requested certain information from Michael Roberts about his wife. In fact, Darren Meade's
2012 and 2013 bank records are chock-full of payments to www.fiverr.com.
On November 11, 2013, Dr. John Pitman's administrative assistant, Tina Allen, received a
call at Dr. John Pitman's medical practice from a male who identified himself as RIPOFF
REPORT employee "SAM YOUBANKS." Tina Allen said SAM YOUBANKS advised that [Dr.
John Pitman] could get the derogatory information published about him on RIPOFF
REPORT removed with an initial down payment and the remaining amount billed after it
was taken down. Tina Allen said SAM YOUBANKS advised there would also be a monthly
fee to continue to monitor RIPOFF REPORT for any new additional derogatory information
published on it concerning Dr. John Pitman. SAM YOUBANKS provided Tina Allen the
following contact information: e-mail: sam@ripoffreport.com and mobile phone No. (949)
600-0673 (Metro PCS), which is (disposable) sold I serviced by Metro PCS. As noted
earlier, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT issued the e-mail sam@ripoffreport.com to
SIAMACK YAGHOBI.
On November 21, 2013, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER to remind her to tell
TRACEY RICHTER something the next time she visited the prison, because she did not
want to discuss it over the phone. ANNA RICHTER discussed giving information to ED
MAG EDSON and I or DARREN MEADE.
On November 30, 2013, an individual posing as Dr. John Pitman (with Dr. John Pitman's
knowledge and permission) using jmpitman@yahoo.com, sent SAM YOUBANKS the
following e-mail to the e-mail address SAM YOUBANKS provided Tina Allen,
sam@ripoffreport.com:
Sam; About 2 weeks ago you spoke with my office manager Tina Allen regarding a proposal
to remove the untruthful posts about myself and my former wife that have been placed on the
RIPOFF REPORT for quite some time. She was expecting to hear back from you by e-mail
regarding the specifics of your proposal and provided you her e-mail address but as of last
Weds she has not heard back from you. Would you please e-mail me the details of the
service or provide a convenient time and phone number to reach out to you directly. Your
response would be appreciated. Thank you JM Pitman, M.D.
On
November
30,
2013,
SAM
YOUBANKS
(sam@ripoffreport.com)
replied
(jmpitmanmd@yahoo.com):
First and foremost, we do not and have not removed reports for our entire tenure of over 16
years in business ... and I have never stated such a 'proposal' what so ever ... what I told Tina
is that what we do within our Corporate Advocacy Program is much better and if the report
83
to
writer cannot provide legitimate proof of the written allegations then we will go about
exposing and redacting false statemenUs. First watch this quick video that goes into detail
about the services we offer within our program:
On December 1, 2013, Ompitmanmd@yahoo.com) responded to SAM YOUBANKS
(sam@ripoffreport.com):
Thank you for your reply and clarification. I am going to discuss this with Tina when she
returns to the office this week. I could be mistaken but I am quite sure that she said that the
reports could be removed for a fee of $10,000.00 paid in 2 installments, one initial payment
and then final payment when the reports were removed. I will get back to you afterwards.
On
December
1,
2013,
SAM
YOU BANKS
(sam@ripoffreport.com)
responded
to
Ompitmanmd@yahoo.com) and copied in ED MAG EDSON (EDitor@ripoffreport.com):

Your welcome, Dr., I am glad to have cleared things up for you. There's nothing worse than
miscommunication errors in business, especially when fellow professionals misquote another
professional. I'm sure Tina is just been busy and/or juggling a lot of thoughts and that could
have been the premise to leading her to share such a ridiculous statement that would never
come from any of our companies' representatives and I'm sorry for the confusion. This is
truly the ultimate opportunity for you to repair and restore your reputation the right way, Dr.
and show consumers that you are a business they can trust because you have made a
commitment to customer satisfaction unto us. I hope you have taken the time to review the
information I sent to you and learn about the invaluable services we are offering members of
the Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation and Customer Satisfaction Program.
On December 5, 2013, Ompitmanmd@yahoo.com) e-mailed the following message to SAM
YOUBANKS (sam@ripoffreport.com):
I have reviewed the materials you sent to me and have asked Tina to follow up by filling out
the application so that this process can be completed as soon as possible. The slander
contained in these reports has had a significant negative financial impact on my practice and
I would be most appreciative if your process could be expedited. Tina has told me that she
has some questions regarding portions of the application and would like to speak with you to
resolve these items so that the application need not be corrected due to any errors or
omissions. She will be in the office tomorrow from 10 am-3 pm EST. Could you give her a
call at 757-229-5200 so that she can get the application completed and off to you before the
weekend.
On December 6, 2013, SAM YOUBANKS called Dr. John Pitman's medical practice and
spoke with Dr. John Pitman's administrative assistant, Tina Allen. The conversation was
recorded. SAM YOUBANKS told Tina Allen once Dr. John Pitman paid RIPOFF REPORT,
RIPOFF REPORT would give Dr. John Pitman the true identities of the individuals who
authored the anonymous defamatory RIPOFF REPORT complaints about him. Specifically,
84
SAM YOUBANKS told Tina Allen that once a RIPOFF REPORT victim pays RIPOFF
REPORT for its Corporate Advocacy Program's (CAP) services, RIPOFF REPORT sends
out a letter to the original author, and if the original author does not respond to the letter,
then RIPOFF REPORT gives the author's IP address to the victim. SAM YOUBANKS told
Tina Allen that his Metro PCS phone was a "separate phone solely dedicated to our
members."
On
December
7,
2013,
Umpitmanmd@yahoo.com)
e-mailed
SAM
YOUBANKS
(sam@ripoffreport.com) the following:

I have been reviewing the application Tina has prepared after your conversation yesterday
and I remain somewhat confused about the requirement for a monthly fee over a 3 year time
frame. Can you explain in more detail why this monthly charge is necessary if in fact your
methods are so effective in off setting the slander? I have been continuously receiving
unsolicited proposals from a variety of companies (see example below} claiming that they
can aclually remove the negative reports from the RipOffReport.com. This company even
states that they will guarantee the result. Are you aware of these e-mail campaigns? How are
these companies getting my personal e-mail contacts? I am going to contact this company
on Monday and see if I can get "Hector" to e-mail me a written proposal (stating the
guarantee}. I will forward you any response that I receive back from him.
On
December 7,
2013,
SAM
YOUBANKS
responded
to the above-e-mail
from
Umpitmanmd@yahoo.com):
You need to first fill out the application. NOT every business is accepted to the CAP
program. Once you've filled that information out, I will be forwarding it to RIPOFF REPORT's
main office. Then you can pose those questions to RIPOFF REPORT. I am just an
independent sales person selling the CAP program part time while I go to school. Once
you've filled out the application, I will forward that to the main office.
On December 13, 2013, RIPOFF REPORT announced that it had offered a $25,000 reward
for information leading to the exoneration of TRACEY RICHTER.
On February 1, 2014, during a prison visit between TRACEY RICHTER and her fiance,
RUSSELL SCHERTZ, said "there is some other thing about BERT PITMAN [your mom,
ANNA RICHTER] didn't want to tell you over the phone." RUSSELL SCHERTZ said
"[JOHN RICHTER] thinks that [Lisa Pitman] put the stuff on RIPOFF REPORT." TRACEY
RICHTER replied, "Probably. Well, did she or was it [DARREN MEADE]? Because I asked
my mom (ANNA RICHTER) if it was [DARREN MEADE]. She (ANNA RICHTER) said, well,
[DARREN MEADE] said no, it (was or wasn't him). And she (ANNA RICHTER) said
DARREN MEADE admitted to other things to her before." RUSSELL SCHERTZ whispered
the name of the person he believed was responsible for the anonymous derogatory I
defamatory postings on RIPOFF REPORT about Dr. John Pitman, but, because he lowered
85
his voice, it is impossible to hear what he said. Then RUSSELL SCHERTZ added "we don't
know [for sure]" who published the RIPOFF REPORT complaints about Dr. John Pitman.
TRACEY RICHTER then told RUSSELL SCHERTZ "it will be interesting if it comes up in his
[divorce proceedings with Lisa Pitman] about him fooling around with hookers and call girls,
because that will be- we will be using that in my post-conviction relief." TRACEY RICHTER
added "BERT PITMAN informed them that "[Dr. John Pitman] is back together with [the
hooker I stripper], but [Dr. John Pitman's] neighbor - I want to say a neighbor told [BERT
PITMAN] or was it Courtney told them?" RUSSELL SCHERTZ said "We need to get some
information from the secretary or the ... business manager before she leaves." TRACEY
RICHTER then said " Well, who knows. Maybe we can get information from [Lisa Pitman],
because [Lisa Pitman] and [Dr. John Pitman] were together [at the time TRACEY RICHTER
has alleged Dr. John Pitman saw pictures I photographs of pink spiral notebook], and if she
saw the photos and she knows he had the photos, maybe we can trade something with her
that she needs." RUSSELL SCHERTZ said they needed to get information from Dr. John
Pitman's secretary and from Lisa Pitman. RUSSELL SCHERTZ and TRACEY RICHTER
agreed they needed help and assistance from Lisa Pitman and Dr. John Pitman's secretary
to obtain sensitive I personal information about Dr. John Pitman. TRACEY RICHTER said
DARREN MEADE admitted to ANNA RICHTER that he had authored I published many of
the RIPOFF REPORT complaints about the State's witnesses, but had said he did not
author I publish the outrageous RIPOFF REPORT complaints about Dr. John Pitman.
TRACEY RICHTER told her mother that "maybe this stuff with Dr. John Pitman could
develop into something for our benefit [in the PCR context]." RUSSELL SCHERTZ told
TRACEY RICHTER he had stored a great deal of information (based on the information in
this affidavit, presumably about TRACEY RICHTER's case I State's witnesses) on his work
computer but he recently had it removed from that computer because his employer's
(ConAgra Foods, Omaha) IT department forced him to remove it. TRACEY RICHTER told
RUSSELL SCHERTZ she had a portable hard drive in a box that was in RUSSELL
SCHERTZ's possession he could use to store this information. TRACEY RICHTER told
RUSSELL SCHERTZ that "they" were going to go after the juror who had an ankle injury
before the trial and wanted off the jury, and that they are going to attack jury members.
RUSSELL SCHERTZ said that one of TRACEY RICHTER's new attorneys, Matthew
Shimanovsky, said SCA Smith is an idiot.
On February 2, 2014, ANNA RICHTER visited TRACEY RICHTER at the prison. TRACEY
RICHTER asked ANNA RICHTER to tell her more about Dr. John Pitman. TRACEY
RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER that Dr. John Pitman needed to come clean and tell the
truth. TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER they already had [witnesses in TRACEY
RICHTER's case] come forward and said they were pressured to lie, so Dr. John Pitman did
86
not need to worry about getting in trouble (for committing perjury). TRACEY RICHTER told
ANNA RICHTER to tell BERT PITMAN the following:
[Dr. John Pitman] needs to come clean about everything. I'm not- there's things we do know
about, and unless he tells us things we don't know about, I don't trust him. Otherwise [Lisa
Pitman] is going to find out everything she needs to know about [Dr. John Pitman's former
girlfriend, Allisan Tucker], whore.
ANNA RICHTER said the following in reply:
And then [BERT PITMAN] should tell [Dr. John Pitman] you better come clean, because
everything will come out about the stuff we don't know, what they told you ... to say, then the
information that I got, I don't want to give to [Lisa Pitman].
TRACEY RICHTER then told ANNA RICHTER to have BERT PITMAN tell Dr. John Pitman
the following:
And we know you (Dr. John Pitman) were helping [your former girlfriend, Allisan Tucker]. We
have got receipts for you (Dr. John Pitman) paying for her dental. We know where here bank
accounts are in Florida. We know how you (Dr. John Pitman) were using your business and
paying for all her (AIIisan Tucker) stuff. Paying for her (AIIisan Tucker) airfare, paying for all
her video production and everything else. Talk to [BERT PITMAN] let [BERT PITMAN] know
that this could be our huge blessing. Because if [Dr. John Pitman] comes forward and admits
[law enforcement] pressured him to [lie about not having knowledge of key pieces of
evidence] ...
A while later, TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER had the following discussion:
TRACEY RICHTER: Talk to [BERT PITMAN] because this could be a huge blessing in
disguise. That could be a Godsend, Mom (ANNA RICHTER). Sometimes God puts things
into play so that we have to seize the opportunity.
ANNA RICHTER: Yeah, but [BERT PITMAN cannot say] anything over the phone to you.
And make sure it's all done in person. [BERT PITMAN] can't [talk about this plan] over the
phone [because] they listen to your phone calls.
TRACEY RICHTER then directed ANNA RICHTER to have BERT PITMAN give Dr. John
Pitman TRACEY RICHTER's word that she "will not get involved" if he (Dr. John Pitman) did
the "right thing." ANNA RICHTER said that she would tell BERT PITMAN not to talk about
their plan over the phone with TRACEY RICHTER. TRACEY RICHTER added "[BERT
PITMAN can tell me over the phone what he knows about Dr. John Pitman] but not about
our plan."
Towards the end of their visit, TRACEY RICHTER said her fiance, RUSSELL SCHERTZ,
told her that "[Dr. John Pitman] thinks [Lisa Pitman] posted that stuff about [him on RIPOFF
REPORT]. ANNA RICHTER replied "That's what [BERT PITMAN] told me, that [Dr. John
87
Pitman] asked [BERT PITMAN] if he thinks that [Lisa Pitman] had been posting all that stuff
on RIPOFF REPORT." TRACEY RICHTER said RUSSELL SCHERTZ told her that ANNA
RICHTER would tell TRACEY RICHTER more about this during their visit the following day.
Then TRACEY RICHTER asked ANNA RICHTER what BERT PITMAN told Dr. John
Pitman in response to Dr. John Pitman's question about whether BERT PITMAN knew who
was responsible for the RIPOFF REPORT complaints about him. ANNA RICHTER replied
"Oh, I don't know. [BERT PITMAN] didn't say. I'm sure he would have said no. Hopefully
[BERT PITMAN] has the smarts to say [he did not know who did it]." TRACEY RICHTER
then said the following:
You know what, [BERT PITMAN] could- he could tell [Dr. John Pitman], "you know what, we
could probably get proof from the people who own RIPOFF REPORT as to who posted it,
and you (Dr. John Pitman) will be able to use it in court, but that we are going to need your
cooperation on things.
ANNA RICHTER said she believed their "other plan," giving personal, sensitive information
about Dr. John Pitman to Lisa Pitman unless Dr. John Pitman "[cooperated]," was a better
plan.
DR. JOHN PITMAN'S DEPOSITION
As mentioned earlier, TRACEY RICHTER's first husband, Dr. John Pitman, was listed as a
State's witness in the State's Trial Information charging TRACEY RICHTER with the first
degree murder of Dustin Wehde, which was filed in Sac County District Court Case No.
FECR011900 on August 5, 2011.
On October 23, 2011, JOHN RICHTER sent the following Facebook message to BERT
PITMAN (his nephew): "once again your [sic] not answering, [sic] call me." Later that same
day, JOHN RICHTER sent the following Facebook message to BERT PITMAN: "call me!"
On October 24, 2011, the State provided defense counsel with a list of its witnesses in the
order in which it intended to call them throughout the week. Later that day, around 11:30
p.m., BERT PITMAN sent the following Facebook message to JOHN RICHTER: "took a
long time to down load all of them. I'm sending it tour [sic] e-mail in the next hour."
On October 25, 2011, at 4:45 a.m., JOHN RICHTER sent the following Facebook message
to BERT PITMAN: "I
inkedtilldeth@aol.com."
just checked
my e-mail
88
[and]
they are
not there
yet,
TRACEY RICHTER's murder trial started later that same morning (October 25, 2011 ). That
evening, at 8:14 p.m., BERT PITMAN sent the following Facebook message to JOHN
RICHTER: "I sent them to inkedtilldeath on accident. Sending them now." October 25, 2011,
BERT PITMAN e-mailed around fifty (50) images of documents that contained personal,
sensitive information about Dr. John Pitman and his then-girlfriend, aspiring musician
Allisan Tucker, whose stage name was I is Lachesis, to his uncle, JOHN RICHTER. Dr.
John Pitman recently told law enforcement the documents shown in these images had to
have been removed from Allisan Tucker's handbag without her permission when she was at
Dr. John Pitman's residence. The information contained in the documents shown in these
images BERT PITMAN sent to JOHN RICHTER is identical to the information TRACEY
RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER conspired to give to Dr. John Pitman's wife, Lisa Pitman, if
Dr. John Pitman did not "play ball."
On October 27, 2011, Dr. John Pitman took the witness stand and gave testimony against
TRACEY RICHTER. Midway through the State's direct examination of Dr. John Pitman,
TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorneys made an evidentiary objection, which was
overruled. The Court, at the request of TRACEY RICHTER's defense attorneys, gave them
permission to depose Dr. John Pitman before he testified any further, adjourned for the day.
Around 7:00 p.m. that evening, TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorneys deposed
Dr. John Pitman. During the deposition, which lasted only about forty-five (45) minutes,
TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorneys questioned Dr. John Pitman about his
relationship with Allisan Tucker, his former girlfriend, and asked Dr. John Pitman on multiple
occasions throughout the deposition whether Allisan Tucker was a stripper or a prostitute.
TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorneys then asked Dr. John Pitman for Allisan
Tucker's phone number so they could call her that evening to confirm whether or not she
was or had been a stripper I hooker. The next morning, Dr. John Pitman took the witness
stand, and finished testifying without ever being asked about Allisan Tucker or whether
Allisan Tucker was a stripper or a hooker. TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorneys
never spoke with Allisan Tucker.
Information obtained by law enforcement suggests JOHN RICHTER communicated
extensively with TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorneys before TRACEY
RICHTER's trial started. On August 20, 2011, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER
that JOHN RICHTER spoke with her criminal defense attorneys for three hours the day
before (August 19, 2011).
On February 3, 2014, TRACEY RICHTER directed BERT PITMAN to find out what was
89
going on with Dr. John Pitman and Lisa Pitman's divorce. BERT PITMAN told TRACEY
RICHTER that Dr. John Pitman asked him whether Lisa Pitman was responsible for the
derogatory postings about him on RIPOFF REPORT. BERT PITMAN told TRACEY
RICHTER that he did not tell Dr. John Pitman who was responsible for publishing the
complaints. Also during this conversation, TRACEY RICHTER told BERT PITMAN he
should have taken her computer.
On February 8, 2014, during a prison visit between TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA
RICHTER, TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER mentioned, by full name, and
discussed the DOT employee who processed TRACEY RICHTER's change of name form in
2010, and who later told law enforcement that TRACEY RICHTER had presented the
forged court decree as proof her name had been legally changed. Then, ANNA RICHTER
told TRACEY RICHTER that ED MAG EDSON wanted her (TRACEY RICHTER) to give him
certain information about Michael Roberts. ANNA RICHTER said ED MAGEDSON had
been after her (ANNA RICHTER) [to do or get something]. ANNA RICHTER also said ED
MAGEDSON e-mailed his (or TRACEY RICHTER's other attorney), Victoria Ames, about
something having to do with TRACEY RICHTER's case. ANNA RICHTER asked TRACEY
RICHTER whether TRACEY RICHTER's attorney could compel Michael Roberts's therapist
to produce the reports from Michael Roberts' therapy session. ANNA RICHTER or
TRACEY RICHTER stated that they would have to tell the doctor I therapist that the
report(s) are needed for TRACEY RICHTER's pending civil litigation with Michael Roberts
(child support contempt action) [when really they planned to give it to ED MAGEDSON I
RIPOFF REPORT for the purposes of publishing it in a RIPOFF REPORT complaint and I
or for RIPOFF REPORT to use in its pending litigation against Michael Roberts]. TRACEY
RICHTER said they would ask one of TRACEY RICHTER's attorney to subpoena the
confidential reports from Michael Roberts's therapist. ANNA RICHTER said getting this
report would really help ED MAGEDSON in his lawsuit against Michael Roberts. Later in
this conversation, TRACEY RICHTER told her mother to ask DARREN MEADE how to
make a website more visible on an internet search (e.g., Google, Bing, Yahoo!, etc.) results.
Attorney Victoria Ames is believed to be a faculty member at Arizona State University
College of Law. The school's website indicates that Victoria Ames was an attorney with
Jaburg and Wilk before joining the College of Law. Jaburg and Wilk represents Xcentric
Ventures (DBA RIPOFF REPORT) and ED MAGEDSON, the owner I operator of RIPOFF
REPORT. In January 2014, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT paid Victoria Ames
$1 ,025. The memo line of this check reads, "December invoice."
On February 16, 2014, during a prison visit between TRACEY RICHTER and DONNA
BISTRICAN, TRACEY RICHTER directed DONNA BISTRICAN to give BERT PITMAN
90
information about RIPOFF REPORT's $25,000 reward that it issued for information leading
to TRACEY RICHTER's exoneration, so BERT PITMAN could forward I publish the same
on www.traceyrichter.com and I or the Facebook page "Free TRACEY RICHTER." TRACEY
RICHTER also told DONNA BISTRICAN to use TRACEY RICHTER's credit card to
purchase I create a website. TRACEY RICHTER told DONNA BISTRICAN that both ANNA
RICHTER and Russ Schertz had copies of this credit card. Later during this conversation,
Donna Bistrican told TRACEY RICHTER that Donna Bistrican had seen something on Iowa
Courts Online that indicated Michael Roberts made a $20,000 payment towards an
outstanding accrued support balance owed to TRACEY RICHTER. Panicked, TRACEY
RICHTER directed Donna Bistrican to quickly contact RUSSELL SCHERTZ and ANNA
RICHTER and have them immediately take TRACEY RICHTER's credit I debit card (where
her child support payments were deposited) to her lawyer and dump all the money from the
card into the attorney's trust account as a retainer, so she could "try and lock it up before
[SCA Smith] [garnished it)" to pay TRACEY RICHTER's almost $300,000 in restitution she
owed Dustin Wehde's family and the State of Iowa.
RICHTER, the two again discussed having BERT PITMAN pressure his father, Dr. John
Pitman, into recanting I changing the testimony he gave in TRACEY RICHTER's murder
trial, by having BERT PITMAN tell Dr. John Pitman that "stuff is going to come out unless
you play ball." TRACEY RICHTER said if this information came out about Dr. John
Pitman, he would lose custody of his children to Lisa Pitman and his business would
be ruined. TRACEY RICHTER said BERT PITMAN should approach Dr. John Pitman
under the false premise that "[they knew) Ben Smith told [Dr. John Pitman) not to talk to
Tracey's lawyers, [and we just want to know what else Ben Smith said to you]." One of the
two then said that BERT PITMAN should tell Dr. John Pitman that if Dr. John Pitman did not
"come clean" that it would really hurt their (BERT PITMAN and Dr. John Pitman)
relationship and that BERT PITMAN should tell Dr. John Pitman "Enough is enough, Daddy.
You need to come clean." ANNA RICHTER said it would be great if BERT PITMAN were to
record this conversation. ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she would contact
BERT PITMAN and discuss their plan with him. Later, TRACEY RICHTER asked whether
her PCR attorneys had scheduled the deposition of her criminal defense attorney(s). ANNA
RICHTER said DARREN MEADE wanted to attack TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense
attorney(s) on RIPOFF REPORT, but ANNA RICHTER told DARREN MEADE "Don't you
dare. We need [him I her)." ANNA RICHTER said TRACEY RICHTER's PCR attorney was
a friend of one of TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorneys and that this criminal
defense attorney confided with TRACEY RICHTER's PCR attorney that he I she made a
number of mistakes representing TRACEY RICHTER in her murder trial. ANNA RICHTER
91
added that ED MAGEDSON also directed DARREN MEADE not to publish anything on
RIPOFF REPORT about TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorneys.
RICHTER, ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE planned to publish complaints on
RIPOFF REPORT attacking the competence I effectiveness of TRACEY RICHTER's
criminal defense attorney(s), but that she instructed DARREN MEADE not to "bother
(TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorney] right now because [in TRACEY
RICHTER's PCR case, TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorney] is going to admit
that he was ineffective (in his representation of TRACEY RICHTER in her murder case I
trial]" and they "needed" him I her. TRACEY RICHTER said DARREN MEADE needed to
wait to publish a complaint on RIPOFF REPORT about her criminal defense attorney until
after the attorney testified in TRACEY RICHTER's Post Conviction Relief case, because
then DARREN MEADE can publish the transcript of the attorney's own under oath
admissions about the attorney's ineffective representation of TRACEY RICHTER.
It is important to note that the crux of TRACEY RICHTER's Post Conviction Relief Petition
filed in Sac County District Court Case No. PCCV019511 on April 16, 2014, is that her
criminal defense attorneys were ineffective in representing her. Obviously, such an
admission by TRACEY RICHTER's criminal defense attorney(s) would aid TRACEY
RICHTER in her PCR efforts. ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that complaints that
are published on RIPOFF REPORT are never taken down. Later, ANNA RICHTER told
TRACEY RICHTER she discussed the $25,000 reward RIPOFF REPORT I ED
MAGEDSON had offered for information leading to TRACEY RICHTER's exoneration;
specifically, ANNA RICHTER told ED MAGEDSON they needed to advertise the reward in
and around Sac County, Iowa.
Also during this prison visit, TRACEY RICHTER directed ANNA RICHTER to have BERT
PITMAN and DARREN MEADE to tell Brandon Wehde (murder victim's first cousin) about
the aforementioned $25,000 reward, and also give him (Brandon Wehde) certain derogatory
information concerning his aunt Mona Wehde's alleged acts of disloyalty to the Wehde
family. TRACEY RICHTER said that someone needed to tell Brandon Wehde "you need to
know the truth about what [Mona Wehde] had been up to." TRACEY RICHTER said
Brandon Wehde should be given a copy of Brett Wehde's (Mona Wehde's husband, Dustin
Wehde's father) suicide note, and he should be told that Mona Wehde (allegedly) planned
to leave her family. ANNA RICHTER said DARREN MEADE already had published Dustin
Wehde's father's suicide note on RIPOFF REPORT. TRACEY RICHTER directed ANNA
RICHTER to also have DONNA BISTRICAN contact Brandon Wehde using her Facebook
account. ANNA RICHTER said she was going to contact BERT PITMAN to discuss the
92
foregoing. TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to work with DARREN MEADE to
create a highly visible website with content that would expose Michael Roberts to hatred,
ridicule, and contempt. TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER again went over their plan
to have BERT PITMAN pressure Dr. John Pitman into changing his testimony. ANNA
RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she exchanged documents with DARREN MEADE, and
that she stores the same in her Dropbox account. TRACEY RICHTER directed ANNA
RICHTER to send documents to "Marko" via Dropbox. ANNA RICHTER said she talked to
ED MAGEDSON, and EO MAGEDSON had talked to attorney Victoria Ames. ANNA
RICHTER said EO MAGEDSON told her that her attorney Matthew Shimanovsky is
supposed to contact Victoria Ames about getting Michael Roberts' confidential therapy
reports I notes from Dr. Rumberger. TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER that her PCR
attorneys needed to talk to one of the jurors who convicted her, as well as all the other
jurors, but that they needed to start with this particular juror, because he I she was the
WEAKEST one (juror). ANNA RICHTER said Julia Ofenbakh said she (Julia Ofenbakh)
would like to see SCA Smith in jail. ANNA RICHTER said Julia Ofenbakh also said "that just
listening to things that [SCA Smith] has done, he (SCA Smith) should be in jail." TRACEY
RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER that someone should register the website
www.BenSmithSucks.com. TRACEY RICHTER asked whether DARREN MEADE had
anything up on RIPOFF REPORT about Mary Higgins and Anna said that Darren is
concentrating on Ben Smith. ANNA RICHTER said she wanted to completely destroy SCA
Smith. ANNA RICHTER said she told this to TRACEY RICHTER's new .attorney Julia
Ofenbakh. ANNA RICHTER said that TRACEY RICHTER's new attorney Julia Ofenbakh
said the jurors in TRACEY RICHTER's criminal case were idiots. ANNA RICHTER said "I
will be damned if my daughter is going to sit here eighteen years before they declare her
innocent." ANNA RICHTER said they need to get this fund going because this is going to
cost money.
On March 2, 2014, during a prison visit between ANNA RICHTER and TRACEY RICHTER,
ANNA RICHTER said she had recently talked to ED MAGEDSON. TRACEY RICHTER
directed ANNA RICHTER to send and I or receive digital copies (of something inaudible).
TRACEY RICHTER said something about people giving money to TRACEY RICHTER via
PayPal and that "[little bits of money add] up." The context of this conversation suggests
that ED MAGEDSON had or was creating this PayPal account. ANNA RICHTER said she
recently spoke with BERT PITMAN. TRACEY RICHTER said there had to be "something
somewhere" about Dr. John Pitman. ANNA RICHTER said something to TRACEY
RICHTER about having BERT PITMAN talk to Dr. John Pitman. ANNA RICHTER further
stated she just wanted "them to be truthful." TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to
(do something) with any information on State's witness Michael Roberts' wife, Dr. Heidi
93
Forsbacka, that ANNA RICHTER obtained. ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that
Dr. Heidi Forsbacka hung up the phone when ANNA RICHTER tried to call her (Heidi
Forsbacka). TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to have someone create the website
www.MichaeiRoberts.Biogger.com.eu and publish defamatory I derogatory content on it
about State's witness Michael Roberts "so nobody will ever want to do business with
him again."
On March 7, 2014, during a prison visit between ANNA RICHTER and TRACEY RICHTER,
TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to have BERT PITMAN take photographs of Dr.
John Pitman's prescriptions, although the recording was difficult to hear at this point. Later,
although still barely audible, it is believed the two discussed getting sensitive I embarrassing
information about Dr. John Pitman for the purpose of blackmailing I extorting him into
recanting I changing his testimony. ANNA RICHTER and TRACEY RICHTER discussed Dr.
John Pitman's personal finances. TRACEY RICHTER said something about ED
MAGEDSON and DARREN MEADE, and that "how someone found where he was living."
TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER to create the website "JeremyCollins.com."
Jeremy Collins is another State's witness. TRACEY RICHTER said Jeremy Collins might
"freak out" after the website about him goes up and just want the stuff online about
him to go away and "that's all [we] would need" [for TRACEY RICHTER to be granted
a new trial through the PCR action]. TRACEY RICHTER told her mother that after
www.JeremyCollins.com goes up that someone would need to approach Jeremy Collins.
TRACEY RICHTER is heard telling ANNA RICHTER "they" needed to put something online
about "another'' one of the State's witnesses. TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER
then discussed putting up a website with information about Michael Roberts that would
make "no women with half a brain want to get involved with him (ANNA RICHTER and
TRACEY RICHTER believed Michael Roberts and his wife, Heidi Forsbacka (aka Heidi
Roberts) were separated I divorced). TRACEY RICHTER added the following:
Well then if [Michael Roberts] wants that [derogatory website about him taken] down ... you
know what the cost of taking down that website on Michael Roberts is? I want all the
dirt on [SCA Smith] and what he did and I want the kids returned to you (ANNA
RICHTER). And then he can have that website taken down and he can do whatever he
wants. He can run off and live where he wants. He can have whatever job -- he can scam
whoever he wants in Australia. I don't care. Just go away-- go away and live in Australia.
ANNA RICHTER said Michael Roberts would not be able to get the derogatory information
removed from RIPOFF REPORT because RIPOFF REPORT does not remove its
complaints. ANNA RICHTER said she had to go home and scan certain documents into her
computer, which the two had previously discussed, and to give them to DARREN MEADE.
ANNA RICHTER listed off the derogatory information about Michael Roberts she planned to
94
publish on the internet.

On March 8, 2014, during a prison visit between TRACEY RICHTER and her mother, ANNA
RICHTER, the two discussed creating a website about Heidi Forsbacka, wife of State's
witness Michael Roberts.
It is important to note that TRACEY RICHTER has created similar websites in past to
defame and harass those adverse to her in litigation or just adverse to her in general.
TRACEY RICHTER's GoDaddy.com account records show that during her divorce I custody
proceedings with Michael Roberts, TRACEY RICHTER created the website
RyanKolpinSucks.com (Michael Roberts' custody I divorce attorney at one point during their
divorce I custody proceedings), MichaeiRobertsSucks.com (obvious reference to Michael
Roberts), Mile2Sucks.com (a reference to Michael Roberts' business), and
HeidiForsbackaSucks.org (Michael Roberts' wife). TRACEY RICHTER later purchased the
rights to and I or created the website RichdaleGroupSucks.com (name of her apartment
complex owners I management, which did not hire Sophie Edwards for a management
position (despite having TRACEY RICHTER as a reference).
On March 9, 2014, during a prison visit between ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER,
ANNA RICHTER said something to TRACEY RICHTER about something ED MAGEDSON
and I or DARREN MEADE had recently said. ANNA RICHTER said ED MAGEDSON gave
her transcripts of the testimony Michael Roberts' gave in a deposition in Michael Roberts
and ED MAGEDSON's civil case in Arizona. ANNA RICHTER stated she received other
items from DARREN MEADE about Michael Roberts. ANNA RICHTER stated she e-mailed
ED MAGEDSON and talked to DARREN MEADE about proving the location of IP
addresses belonging to Michael Roberts (assumedly, the IP addresses from which Michael
Roberts posted comments on RIPOFF REPORT). Towards the end of the visit, TRACEY
RICHTER said something to ANNA RICHTER about destroying Michael Roberts socially
and professionally. Later, the two discussed finding another way to reach Michael Roberts'
wife, Dr. Heidi Forsbacka, and publishing defamatory I derogatory information about her on
the internet. TRACEY RICHTER directed ANNA RICHTER to give ED MAG EDSON a list of
the information ED MAGEDSON should request of Michael Roberts through the civil
discovery process to get information about Michael Roberts's wife, Heidi Forsbacka (aka
Heidi Roberts) (Michael Roberts and ED MAGEDSON were I are currently engaged in civil
litigation). TRACEY RICHTER told ANNA RICHTER that Michael Roberts might "back off' if
ED MAG EDSON requested certain information from I about Michael Roberts's wife. ANNA
RICHTER stated that State's witnesses committed perjury when they testified against
TRACEY RICHTER.
On March 14, 2014, during a prison visit between ANNA RICHTER and TRACEY
95
RICHTER, ANNA RICHTER said BERT PITMAN told her Dr. John Pitman denied being
responsible for a derogatory news article about TRACEY RICHTER.
On March 15, 2014, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER she e-mailed ED
MAGEDSON the other day about something having to do with Michael Roberts. ANNA
RICHTER said something about ED MAGEDSON emailing DARREN MEADE about
something having to do with Michael Roberts.
On March 16, 2014, ANNA RICHTER mentioned something having to do with ED
MAGEDSON. ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER how certain online articles I
websites "get moved to the top [of an internet search result]." ANNA RICHTER stated she
had to give something to DARREN MEADE.
On March 20, 2014, BERT PITMAN sent the following e-mail message to ANNA RICHTER
and JOHN RICHTER:
This is my letter to [his father, Dr. John Pitman]. I will be sending you another e-mail in the
next day or two with my detailed conversation I will have with [Dr. John Pitman] if he agrees
to meet with a psychologist. Send me any changes you might have on this letter, but the next
one will definitely need more input from everyone. Since it will detail prior occurrences and
what will need to be done by him to make things right Thank you for your time Lil' Bert
Richter
The following is BERT PITMAN's (aka Bert Richter) aforementioned letter to his father, Dr.
John Pitman:
Dear John Pitman Ill, I appreciate you reaching out and trying to speak with me, but
unfortunately, the divide between us is too great to just have a casual conversation. Even
though I would love to have a father to talk to about sports and such, I cannot do so because
you have failed to be one for the vast majority of my life. The times you should have given,
you took. The times you should have helped me grow, you did set a good example. The
times when you could have been a man, you were deceitful and showed poor character.
Your actions have cause me an immense amount of pain, however, I have made it through it
all and have come out the other side as a strong and enlightened man. As a man, it is on me
to clearly state what you need to do to make amends. If and when, you fulfill my requests,
then we can be on speaking terms and start to repair our relationship. I would like to meet
with you with Dr. Coe (we can split the costs), so we can discuss the reasons for our tattered
relationship and what needs to be done to fix it. Until then, communication between you and I
will be solely professional, monetary, or concerning the scheduling of this meeting. BERT
PITMAN
On March 21, 2014, during a prison visit between ANNA RICHTER and TRACEY
RICHTER, ANNA RICHTER said BERT PITMAN planned to write Dr. John Pitman two
letters. The first letter BERT PITMAN planned to write to Dr. John Pitman would be short
96
and to the point, and the second one would tell Dr. John Pitman that if he is to have a
relationship with him (BERT PITMAN) "there are things that have to be done." ANNA
RICHTER said BERT PITMAN planned to tell Dr. John Pitman that he had to make right
what he had done to TRACEY RICHTER, be accountable, and come forward with the truth.
TRACEY RICHTER said Dr. John Pitman needed to "step up." ANNA RICHTER said BERT
PITMAN told her Dr. John Pitman was going to come forward with the truth. Then, TRACEY
RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER begin to whisper, but you can hear TRACEY RICHTER say
BERT PITMAN needed to get Dr. John Pitman to say that law enforcement and Michael
Roberts told Dr. John Pitman what to say. TRACEY RICHTER then said Dr. John Pitman
needed to swear out an affidavit that TRACEY RICHTER never tried to kill Dr. John Pitman.
TRACEY RICHTER directed ANNA RICHTER to have BERT PITMAN find out whether
Michael Roberts tried to intimidate Dr. John Pitman. Later in this visit, ANNA RICHTER told
TRACEY RICHTER that BERT PITMAN stated he was going to make Dr. John Pitman
come forward with the truth and correct this mistakes.
Dr. John Pitman recently told law enforcement that BERT PITMAN hand delivered Dr. John
Pitman with a copy of his aforementioned letter on or around April 7, 2014, and that they
discussed going to therapy I counseling, but never did. Dr. John Pitman also said BERT
PITMAN had never asked Dr. John Pitman to retract or change his testimony or to swear
out an affidavit.
Dr. John Pitman stated his medical practice has lost an estimated $600,000 since these
defamatory I derogatory articles about him first appeared on RIPOFF REPORT. Similarly,
State's witness Raymond Friedman and Michael Roberts also informed SCA Smith that
their respective businesses had suffered greatly as a result of DARREN MEADE's RIPOFF
REPORT complaints I articles.
In late April 2014 I early May 2014, DARREN MEADE and ED MAGEDSON had a fallingout. Apparently, DARREN MEADE quit working, ED MAGEDSON stopped paying DARREN
MEADE because DARREN MEADE quit working, and DARREN MEADE believed he
should be paid for doing nothing. When ED MAGEDSON refused to pay DARREN MEADE,
DARREN MEADE threatened ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT that if ED MAGEDSON
I RIPOFF REPORT did not pay DARREN MEADE money and fulfill other demands,
DARREN MEADE would expose RIPOFF REPORT to civil, maybe even criminal liability.
On May 15, 2014, DARREN MEADE (darrenmitchellm@gmail.com) wrote the following email to ED MAGEDSON (westerned@aol.com): "I can document with log files, screen
recordings and search histories the thousands of hours I spent researching to help ED
MAGEDSON and TRACEY RICHTER."
In another May 15 e-mail between DARREN MEADE, ED MAGEDSON,
97
SIAMACK
YAGHOBI,
ANNA
RICHTER
(anna_richter2003@yahoo.com),
and
(adam@ripoffreport.com) [Adam Kunz General Counsel for XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC],

DARREN MEADE alleged that ED MAGEDSON directed and demanded DARREN MEADE
to make changes to a video and that DARREN MEADE took down the "posts". DARREN
MEADE further stated in this e-mail that he had no animosity towards Michael Roberts and
that he worked at ED MAGEDSON's direction. DARREN MEADE also told ED MAGEDSON
the following:
"ANNA RICHTER, TRACEY RICHTER's mother, called and begged me to come testify at
the murder trial. I could not walk at the time, and was threatened wilh arrest if I set foot in
Iowa. When TRACEY RICHTER was convicted I fell responsible, I allowed myself to be
intimidaled and ignored Anna's pleas for help ... that is why [sic] drove me ... not hatred."
DARREN MEADE's above-assertions, by his own prior admissions and all available
evidence I information, are patently false. In fact, DARREN MEADE did not even know
ANNA RICHTER until after TRACEY RICHTER had been convicted of murder.
In a May 16, 2014, e-mail, ED MAGEDSON sent the following e-mail to MEADE:
I am sick about what you seem to be trying to claim! We have never had a conlract for you
to work for my company. We specifically documented that we would have no conlracts
unless in wriling. You are certainly nolan employee of me or my company. I have been your
friend. WE HAVE HAD A MUTUAL CAUSE, TO FREE TRACY RICHTER, AND TO
EXPOSE MICHAEL ROBERTS TO THE WORLD FOR HIS HYPOCRITICAL AND
DISHONEST DEALINGS. I have supported your living expenses to allow you to continue
with YOUR work towards those goals. I certainly never had a direction or control over the
work. In fact, many of the things that you stated you would do have never happened. And,
now you are telling me that you lost your research. What a disappointmenl. What a
blunder. Darren, some of the things you write about make il seem like you feel entitled to get
certain things at my expense, like rent and a car and food. I don't help you wilh those things
because I am obligated. I [GAVE YOU MONEY] BECAUSE I WANTED TO HELP YOU, MY
FRIEND, AND I WANTED TO SUPPORT YOUR CRUSADE TO SEE JUSTICE IN THE
TRACY RICHTER CASE.
In another May 16, 2014, e-mail from ED MAGEDSON to DARREN MEADE, ED
MAG EDSON admitted paying DARREN MEADE to help I do work associated with TRACEY
RICHTER at ED MAGEDSON's direction.
On May 17, 2014, MEADE sent the following e-mail to ANNA RICHTER, ED MAGEDSON,
and SIAMACK YAGHOBI:
Anna, the video's I made on behalf of Tracey and exposing Michael Roberts and Ben Smilh
have were disabled for some reason on RIPOFF REPORT. I was hopeful my issues wilh Ed
would not affect my advocacy work on Tracey's behalf, but ever video I had made has been
98
disabled. The majority of the video's I had also placed onto a website I made for Tracey
located at http://traceyrichter.com had many of the same video's which I published on
RIPOFF REPORT. Those video's are operational, I pay for that site every 3 months ( $39.95
) and will send you the billing information so you can continue the website. It would seem
that my ability to post video's on Tracey's behalf no longer exists on RIPOFF REPORT. I will
post a new video on http://traceyrichter.com it will not have the viewership of RIPOFF
REPORT, but given my video's were disabled I believe this is the best course of action. I've
copied Ed and Michael's friend [SIAMACK YAGHOBI] on this e-mail for transparency. I
wanted to alert you to what had taken place on RIPOFF REPORT and assure you it was
nothing that I participated in, and again, the website I control still has the video's active ::
perhaps, I am wrong and there is another reason the video's are disabled on RIPOFF
REPORT but active on other web sites?
In a May 17, 2014, e-mail from ED MAGEDSON (EDitor@ripoffreport.com) to DARREN
MEADE (dmeade@kairos-meade.com), ED MAGEDSON said the following: "Anyone that
knows you knows you've had an obsession to go after [Michael Roberts] for your own, and
[TRACEY RICHTER] just got some of the benefits." Later on in the above-e-mail (or another
one sent on this same date) ED MAGEDSON admitted he paid DARREN MEADE to work
on matters involving TRACEY RICHTER and RIPOFF REPORT.
Just some of RIPOFF REPORT's bank records show that between December 2011 and
May 2014, RIPOFF REPORT paid DARREN MEADE approximately $90,000 from its Bank
of America account. ED MAGEDSON has also discussed paying DARREN MEADE from
other sources, such as prepaid credit cards.
Most telling in all this, however, is EO
MAGEDSON paid DARREN MEADE $3,000.00 just days after DARREN MEADE began
extorting RIPOFF REPORT I ED MAGEDSON. As indicated above, throughout May 2014,
DARREN MEADE told ED MAGEOSON I RIPOFF REPORT he was prepared to make
public the fact that he worked at ED MAGEDSON's direction in their joint efforts to "help"
TRACEY RICHTER and published RIPOFF REPORT complaints about the State's
witnesses. Rather than alert the authorities to DARREN MEADE's extortionist efforts, EO
MAGEOSON I RIPOFF REPORT instead asked DARREN MEADE for a list of his demands,
which DARREN MEADE provided, and ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT at least
partially met.
On May 28, 2014, DARREN MEADE contacted a plaintiff adverse to RIPOFF REPORT in
pending civil litigation. DARREN MEADE informed the plaintiff he (DARREN MEADE) had
worked for XCENTRIC VENTURES from January 2012 to May 2014, and that he was now
adverse to ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT, and he was willing provide evidence to
this plaintiff on certain conditions.
On June 19, 2014, DARREN MEADE published the following "Tweet" on his Twitter
99
account: "Attention: Alleged RIPOFF REPORT Victims! Please know I am available for
depositions June 23-271h in Laguna Beach, CA" @darrenmeade (DARREN MEADE's
Twitter account "handle").
On June 25, 2014, at 4:22 pm CST, one of ED MAGEDSON's I RIPOFF REPORT's
attorneys was sent an e-mail, which asked whether said attorney planned to attend
DARREN MEADE's depositions (as advertised on DARREN MEADE's Twitter account) and
provided a link to DARREN MEADE's above-Tweet. Interestingly, also on June 25 and on
26, 2014, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT allowed DARREN MEADE to publish addon complaints I comments to existing RIPOFF REPORT complaints Nos. 970019 and
938843, which condemned SCA Smith for garnishing TRACEY RICHTER's prison funds. It
is not know at this time whether DARREN MEADE published these comments before or
after ED MAGEDSON's I RIPOFF REPORT's attorney was sent the e-mail described
above.
CONCLUSION
Based on my training and experience, and the facts as set forth in this affidavit, there is
probable cause to believe TRACEY RICHTER (aka SOPHIE EDWARDS), DONNA
BISTRICAN, ANNA RICHTER, DARREN MEADE, BERT PITMAN (aka BERT RICHTER),
ED MAGEDSON, SIAMACK YAGHOBI (aka SAM YOUBANKS) and XCENTRIC
VENTURES I RIPOFF REPORT have committed the crimes set forth below, either directly,
or by aiding and abetting another in and with the same crimes, and the property and
information described in Attachments A and B to this Search Warrant is property I
information used or possessed with the intent to be used as the means of committing a
public offense or concealed to prevent an offense from being discovered and I or is property
relevant to the crimes discussed below and material as evidence in a criminal prosecution
for the same or any related offenses.
WITNESS TAMPERING
"A person who, in retaliation for anything lawfully done by any witness ... in any case,
harasses such witness, or conspires to do the same ... commits an aggravated
misdemeanor. IOWA CoDE 720.4, 706.1 (2013). In Iowa, an aggravated misdemeanor is
an indictable offense. Iowa Cons!. Art. 1 11; IowA CoDE 903.1(2) (2013); Iowa Rule of
100
Criminal Procedure 2.4(2) (2013) Here, the harassment was done by communicating with a
State's witness in a criminal matter filed in the Sac County District Court, by electronic
communication, without legitimate purpose, in a manner likely to cause the witness
annoyance or harm and with the specific intent to intimidate, annoy or alarm the witness
and, with the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, and the subject's actions did
produce detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering in Iowa is an indictable offense.
IOWA CODE 708.7(1) (2013); IOWA CODE 720.4 (2013); I.A. Cons!. art. I, 11; IOWA CODE
903.1(2) (2013); Iowa R. Grim. P. 2.4(2); IOWA CODE 803.1 (2013)
Based on the evidence I information contained in this application, there is probable cause to
believe that beginning in 2012, TRACEY RICHTER, DARREN MEADE, ED MAGEDSON,
ANNA RICHTER, RUSSELL SCHERTZ, DONNA BISTRICAN, and I or BERT PITMAN
have been engaged in a systematic and ongoing campaign of cyber I internet harassment
and defamation aimed directly at the State's witnesses, in retaliation for their cooperation
with law enforcement and testimony against TRACEY RICHTER in State v. Richter, Sac
County District Court Case No. FECR011900.
The available evidence strongly suggests DARREN MEADE, ANNA RICHTER, TRACEY
RICHTER, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT, BERT PITMAN, RUSSELL SCHERTZ,
knew most of the demeaning, derogatory content they published about the State's
witnesses on the RIPOFF REPORT and other sites was I is per se defamatory.
The available evidence shows that in January 2012, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT
and at least one of ED MAGEDSON's I RIPOFF REPORT's attorneys was aware of
DARREN MEADE's aforementioned deposition wherein DARREN MEADE, among many
other damning admissions, testified to the following: that DARREN MEADE was hired by
convicted felons to defame a witness for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the
witness into settling his civil case with these convicted felons (i.e., that DARREN MEADE
was once a "liar for hire"); that Michael Roberts' was ADAM ZUCKERMAN's victim, not his
partner, the latter of which DARREN MEADE alleged in seventy-five (75%) or more of all his
RIPOFF REPORT complaints he published about the State's witnesses; that DARREN
MEADE, when he was working for and with these convicted felons, had actually removed
RIPOFF REPORT complaints from the internet by injecting the above-describe illicit SOL
source code into RIPOFF REPORT's servers; and that "RIPOFF REPORT never deletes
anything written about somebody. So it's the perfect place to defame somebody because it
will always stay up, and for some reason it winds up ranking on the first page of Google. So
if you want to destroy somebody's reputation, that's a great place to do it." Additionally,
DARREN MEADE and ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT have alleged the testimony
given by the State's witnesses against TRACEY RICHTER during her trial were in direct
101
conflict with the testimony they gave in their depositions, which is patently false. TRACEY
RICHTER, ANNA RICHTER, and RUSSELL SCHERTZ provided DARREN MEADE and ED
MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT with copies of the discovery in TRACEY RICHTER's
criminal trial, including the transcripts from the depositions of the State's witnesses.
As discussed earlier, in April 2013, TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER learned of
DARREN MEADE's deposition, as SCA Smith referenced it in his Motion to Quash
TRACEY RICHTER's subpoena duces tecum to the Sac County Sheriff, and even included
DARREN MEADE's quote about how RIPOFF REPORT is a "great place" to destroy
someone's reputation. As discussed earlier, on July 20, 2012, after learning SCA Smith had
received DARREN MEADE's deposition pursuant to a court order subpoena, DARREN
MEADE pleaded with the subpoenaed party, Dr. Scott Connelly, to "pull back" the
deposition from SCA Smith and tell SCA Smith the transcript was inaccurate. Also in April
2013, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT received a copy of SCA Smith's Motion to
Quash. Additionally, in May 2013, ED MAG EDSON I RIPOFF REPORT learned of the 2011
e-mail DARREN MEADE sent to convicted felon ADAM ZUCKERMAN wherein DARREN
MEADE suggested that for the purpose of furthering DARREN MEADE and ADAM
ZUCKERMAN's felonious enterprises, they should begin publicly accusing Michael Roberts
of Dustin Wehde's murder (i.e., that Michael Roberts sent Dustin Wehde into he and
TRACEY RICHTER's home to attack TRACEY RICHTER, which resulted in TRACEY
RICHTER shooting (nine times) and killing Dustin Wehde).
Despite having unimpeachable evidence as early as January 2012, that DARREN MEADE
had previously been hired I paid by convicted felons to defame witnesses online and that
most of the content in DARREN MEADE's RIPOFF REPORT complaints were patently
false, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT paid DARREN MEADE to create defamatory,
harassing RIPOFF REPORT complaints about the State's witnesses, and provided him with
unfettered access to RIPOFF REPORT, a "great place to destroy someone's reputation,"
which by DARREN MEADE's own admissions, had the ability to attract up to two million
viewers per day. In addition to paying DARREN MEADE over at least $80,000.00 to create
RIPOFF REPORT complaints about the State's witnesses and publicize the same, ED
MAG EDSON I RIPOFF REPORT, aware of the factual, under oath assertions contained in
DARREN MEADE's deposition, sought out major news media to advertise and vouch for the
credibility of DARREN MEADE's work on RIPOFF REPORT, specifically, DARREN
MEADE's RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843.
Another example of ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT protecting and vouching for
DARREN MEADE is on or around September 14, 2012, when Michael Roberts made a
102
comment I rebuttal to DARREN MEADE's September 9, 2012, RIPOFF REPORT complaint

(No. 938843) about the State's witnesses, which he titled:
[DARREN MEADE] OF KAIROS-MEADE IN LAGUNA BEACH CALIFORNIA. [DARREN
MEADE] IS A PAID REPUTATION-HITMAN WORKING FOR ED MAGEDSON OF RIPOFF
REPORT THESE POSTINGS ARE IN RESPONSE TO MY REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO
DARREN MEADE'S EXTORTION DEMANDS IN OCTOBER 2011, AND MY EXPOSES ON
ED MAGEDSON'S APPALLING BUSINESS PRACTICES.
In this comment I rebuttal, Michael Roberts provided hyperlinks to information that poked
holes in DARREN MEADE's credibility and the substantive content of his RIPOFF REPORT
complaint about the State's witnesses and corroborated Michael Roberts' comment.
However, sometime after Michael Roberts' posted this comment, ED MAGEDSON I
RIPOFF REPORT removed or "redacted" Michael Roberts's hyperlinks and amended the
above-title of his rebuttal to the following: '"UPDATE .. FROM [ED MAGEDSON] NEITHER RIPOFF REPORT, NOR ED MAGEDSON ENGAGED, HIRED OR REQUESTED
DARREN MEADE TO WRITE THIS STORY."
Also, it is important to note that the original URL for DARREN MEADE's November 9, 2012
(published on November 11, 2012), RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843 was
http://www. ripoffreport.comlben-smith-michael-roberts-rexxfieldlprosecutorial-misconducUsac-citysac-county-iowa-B1A77.htm However, the URL for the same RIPOFF REPORT complaint is now
http://www.ripoffreport.comlriBen-Smith-Sac-County-lowa-Prosecutor-Prosecutoriai-MisconductTracey-Richter-Falsely-Convicted-Overwhelming-Evidence-Michaei-Roberts-Rexxfield/Sac-Citylowa-/Ben-Smith-Sac-County-lowa-Attorney-prosecutorial-misconduct-improper-relationship-with-st-
938843
It is not difficult to understand why this change was made, considering the following e-mail
ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT sent to SIAMACK YAGHOBI on September 18,2013:
I put [the reviews] at the beginning for a reason. Look - the ONLY f reason why [RIPOFF
REPORT customers I victims] are talking to you (SIAMACK YAGHOBI aka SAM
YOU BANKS, RIPOFF REPORT CAP and Verified salesman) is, because, they are listed on
Google and they want that f ing listing to change!!! Once [the RIPOFF REPORT customer I
victim sees] that- that the title is changed out! And we inject over 500 to over 1,000 words
before the [RIPOFF REPORT customer's I victim's defamatory RIPOFF REPORT complaint]
with new titles that reflect [the RIPOFF REPORT customer's I victim's commilment to
satisfaction etc .. that is all they will care about - they will listen to anything you have to say
my Aladdin.
As discussed earlier, on September 9, 2012, DARREN MEADE and ED MAGEDSON
published RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843, which, among other things, accuses
the State's witnesses of perjury and theft, and contains comments and a myriad of
103
hyperlinks (which, unlike those hyperlinks published by Michael Roberts that are mentioned
above) to other salacious, defamatory stories concerning the State's witnesses. ED
MAG EDSON and DARREN MEADE have placed this RIPOFF REPORT complaint, on each
of Rl POFF REPORT's approximate 1.8 million webpages (No. 938843). ED MAG EDSON
and DARREN MEADE have bragged about RIPOFF REPORT's visibility on the internet. By
DARREN MEADE's own admission, RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843 has been
viewed 1.2 BILLION times. RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843 contains a myriad of
hyperlinks and "rebuttal" or add-on complaints, which redirects readers I viewers to other
salacious I defamatory RIPOFF REPORT "complaints" about the State's witnesses made by
DARREN MEADE and other anonymous authors.
As noted above, DARREN MEADE has admitted to authoring some of the other RIPOFF
REPORT complaints about the State's witnesses. The evidence shows DARREN MEADE
was I is an agent of RIPOFF REPORT I ED MAGEDSON. ED MAGEDSON has paid
DARREN MEADE over one hundred thousand dollars (either directly or indirectly) to create
the content published in the RIPOFF REPORT complaints about the State's witnesses, all
in effort to "help" TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER. Since December 2012, ED
MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT, from just one of ED MAGEDSON's I RIPOFF REPORT'
bank accounts, has paid DARREN MEADE over $80,000.00 either directly or indirectly.
Evidence demonstrates that DARREN MEADE received additional compensation from ED
MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT from other sources in this same timeframe. Additionally,
phone records show that from April2012 and December 2013, DARREN MEADE's mobile
phone called ED MAGEDSON's mobile phone 336 times for a total of 50 hours, and sent
ED MAGEDSON's mobile phone 854 text messages. In this same timeframe, ED
MAGEDSON's mobile phone called DARREN MEADE's mobile phone 1503 times for a total
of 279 hours, and sent DARREN MEADE's mobile phone 954 text messages.
DARREN MEADE's SPRINT PCS mobile phone records for number (949) 357-6193 shows
that through April 2012 and December 2013, DARREN MEADE called (602) 518-4357,
which is a Leap Wireless (dba Cricket Wireless) believed to be ED MAGEDSON's phone,
366 times for a total of approximately 50 hours. ED MAGEDSON is the owner I operator of
ROR. In this same timeframe DARREN MEADE sent Mag edson 854 text messages. Also in
this same timeframe, Magedson called DARREN MEADE 1 ,503 times for a total of 279
hours. In this same time, ED MAGEDSON sent DARREN MEADE 954 text messages.
In addition to knowing the defamatory, harassing complaints, were patently false, DARREN
MEADE and ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT, crafted said complaints so the same
would be highly visible in legitimate Google-type search results for the State's witnesses
and I or their businesses.
104
The most salacious, defamatory RIPOFF REPORT complaints about the State's witnesses,
however, are made by anonymous and I or fictitious persons. The information contained in
this application, however, demonstrates DARREN MEADE, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF
REPORT, TRACEY RICHTER, and her family and friends are or know the identities of
these anonymous authors and I or have colluded with them on some level. Example 1:
RIPOFF REPORT complaints No. 1049232 and 1000888 contain the same photograph of
State's witness Dr. John Pitman; the first was published by DARREN MEADE, and the latter
by a "BRETT COLLINS." Example 2: The titles of all the RIPOFF REPORT complaints
concerning the State's witnesses, although they appear nonsensical and choppy, are
worded to maximize their visibility in results of legitimate internet searches for the same
people I businesses. As noted earlier, this is the same method of labeling I titling RIPOFF
REPORT complaints ED MAGEDSON and DARREN MEADE suggested private
investigator Tina Church use to maximize the visibility of any RIPOFF REPORT complaints
she may publish on their behalf. A cursory examination of the titles used in just a sampling
of RIPOFF REPORT complaints demonstrates most are about consumer issues, not events
not related to consumers and businesses, such as murder cases, and that the titles to most
of these complaints read something like the following title pulled from a recently published
RIPOFF REPORT complaint: "[COMPANY I BUSINESS NAME] DOES NOT BACK
PRODUCT AND HAS NO VIABLE SUPPORT MECHANISM NATIONWIDE." Whereas the
title of DARREN MEADE's RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 1009000, published on
February 7, 2013 is as follows:
MILE2 MICHAEL ROBERTS REXXFIELD RAYMOND FRIEDMAN MARIE FRIEDMAN
GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OF CHILD MOLESTATION, CHILD TORTURE, EXACT RECIPES
OF LIQUID EXPLOSIVES, PIPE BOMBS ILLICIT RECORDINGS, INTERNET
Comparing the above-title with the one below for RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 990368,
which published by anonymous author "LOST BOY" leaves no doubt DARREN MEADE and
"LOST BOY" are somehow connected, if not the same:
MIKE ROBERTS MILE2 REXXFIELD.COM CHILD TORTURE AND CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY, EXACT RECIPES FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF LIQUID EXPLOSIVES
AND PIPE BOMBS, INTERNET
Example 3: Communications between the above-named individuals obtained by law
enforcement show that some of the personal I sensitive information contained in some of
the RIPOFF REPORT complaints authored by these anonymous I fictitious persons, was
given to DARREN MEADE by TRACEY RICHTER's friends I family. Example 4: The subject
matter of these anonymous RIPOFF REPORT complaints closely follow TRACEY
RICHTER's conversations about the same subject matter with ANNA RICHTER and her
fiance, RUSSELL SCHERTZ.
105
The evidence clearly shows that DARREN MEADE ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT,
and the anonymous authors (who the evidence demonstrates most likely are, or have some
close association with DARREN MEADE and ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT), have
titled their harassing, defamatory RIPOFF REPORT complaints and their respective add-on
comments I rebuttals to reach not only the "two million viewers per day" they bragged about,
but more importantly, to friends love interests, prospective employers I customers, etc. who
I which after conducting a legitimate I benign search result for one of the witnesses, would
almost certainly find one of these RIPOFF REPORT complaints at the very top of the first
page of the search result. Example: Today, June 26, 2014, SCA Smith searched "Marie
and Raymond Friedman" using Google. Again, Marie and Raymond Friedman were two key
State's witnesses. The first three search results for "Marie and Raymond Friedman" (the
parentheses were not part of the search terms entered in Google) return links to RIPOFF
REPORT complaints with the following titles:
MILE2 MICHAEL ROBERTS REXXFIELD RAYMOND FRIEDMAN MARIE FRIEDMAN
GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OF CHILD MOLESTATION, CHILD TORTURE, EXACT
RECIPES OF LIQUID EXPLOSIVES, PIPE BOMBS ILLICIT RECORDINGS, INTERNET
(RIPOFF REPORT No. 1009000)
MILE2 MICHAEL ROBERTS RAY FRIEDMAN CONSPIRE TO DEFRAUD MAJORITY

PARTNER TRACEY RICHTER IN ORDER TO USE MILE2 TO STEAL GOVERNMENT
[SIC] SECRETS VIA SOCIAL ENGINEERING AMAN BHAR, MATTHEW RAIKES, NICK
DUMITRU, PAUL PORTELLI, WIKI LEAKS SOURCE, SOCIAL ENGINEERING
UTILIZED AGAINST U.S. MILITARY, MARIE FRIEDMAN, HACKING OF MILITARY
SECRETS, LIJIT NETWORKS TAMPA, FLORIDA (RIPOFF REPORT No. 980023)
The third result was a link to the search result wilhin RIPOFF REPORT to the first of the
three RIPOFF REPORT complaints listed here (No. 1009000)
As mentioned earlier, on January 1, 2012 ED MAG EDSON wrote check No. 2498 for
$2,500 to DARREN MEADE from the XCENTRIC VENTURES (dba RIPOFF REPORT),
LLC bank account. The memo line of the check stated "[Public Relations] thru Feb 15,
2012". Evidently, the so-called public relations affected by DARREN MEADE since his
engagement by ED MAGEDSON can only be described as a scorched-earth campaign
against each and every State's witnesses. This includes literally hundreds of webpages,
images, videos, or comments on websites that are not RIPOFF REPORT, that are
conspicuously search-engine-optimized so as draw the viewer I reader back to defamatory,
harassing RIPOFF REPORT complaints, to cause maximum damage to each State's
Witness when the names or businesses are searched in Google or other search engines. In
short, the reader I viewer of legitimate internet content, is almost always one click away
from landing on one of the many RIPOFF REPORT complaints about the State's witnesses.
106
Most telling, however, is the crux of the defamatory, harassing RIPOFF REPORT
complaints published on RIPOFF REPORT by DARREN MEADE and ED MAGEDSON I
RIPOFF REPORT center on the personal and professional lives of the four State's
witnesses DARREN MEADE identified as being most responsible for TRACEY RICHTER's
conviction (i.e., Dr. John Pitman, Mary Higgins, Marie Friedman, and Raymond Friedman)
and thoughtful alternative theories of the TRACEY RICHTER's case. In fact, Jeremy Collins,
the war (Iraq) wounded combat veteran, whose alleged involvement as the mysterious
"second intruder" in the imagined home invasion, was the heart and soul of TRACEY
RICHTER's defense theory. In fact, TRACEY RICHTER flopped around defense counsel's
table, feigning terror, as the "second intruder," as Jeremy Collins entered the courtroom
and made his way to the witness stand, which looking back, explains why TRACEY
RICHTER's criminal defense attorneys covered TRACEY RICHTER's eyes when SCA
Smith displayed a photograph of Jeremy Collins during a deposition, just a few weeks
before her trial started. Regardless, in a recorded conversation between TRACEY
RICHTER and one of the investigators back in 2002, TRACEY RICHTER (unknowingly)
positively excluded Jeremy Collins as the second intruder. In the hundred-plus hours of
audio recorded phone conversations and visits, SCA Smith only recalls TRACEY RICHTER
mentioning I discussing Jeremy Collins one time, which was she told her mother to create
the website www.JeremyCollins.com, in the hopes that Jeremy Collins would "freak out" and
"just want things to go away." In the ten years that followed Dustin Wehde's murder,
TRACEY RICHTER described the alleged second intruder as being Caucasian, Hispanic I
Caucasian, and Middle Eastern. One time TRACEY RICHTER said the second intruder had
worn a ski throughout the entire alleged home invasion. TRACEY RICHTER also described
second intruder's height as being anywhere from 5'7" to 6'2". One time she described the
alleged second intruder's build as being slender, but later described him as having a
heavier physique. TRACEY RICHTER once told law enforcement that the second intruder
was not strong enough to pick her up off the ground, another time she said he picked held
her up off the ground to the point her feel were dangling.
The fact that this narrative (Jeremy Collins as the second intruder) is largely ignored in
DARREN MEADE's "investigation" and subsequent RIPOFF REPORT complaints and
comments, which just so happen to target, on an unfathomable scale (1.8 million webpages
viewed over a billion times), the professional and personal lives of the four Stale's
witnesses DARREN MEADE identified as being most responsible for TRACEY RICHTER's
conviction, is just one of many examples proving the RIPOFF REPORT complaints
concerning the State's witnesses were created and published to harass and defame the
State's witnesses for cooperating and testifying against TRACEY RICHTER, and not for any
legitimate purpose.
107
As for TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER, the information contained in this affidavit
demonstrates that, on multiple occasions, TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER
discussed creating derogatory websites about some of the State's witnesses to cause them
"freak out" and "just want it all to go away" (Jeremy Collins). Additionally, the evidence
shows that TRACEY RICHTER, ANNA RICHTER, and their friends and family provided
DARREN MEADE and I ED MAGEDSON RIPOFF REPORT with the information (e.g.,
reports, photographs, and other sensitive information knowing DARREN MEADE and ED
MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT, they knew would be used in RIPOFF REPORT
complaints concerning the State's witnesses.
What the evidence also makes clear is that ANNA RICHTER has control over what
DARREN MEADE and ED MAGEDSON publish on RIPOFF REPORT. As discussed
earlier, ANNA RICHTER told TRACEY RICHTER that DARREN MEADE intended to
publish a derogatory RIPOFF REPORT complaint concerning the poor legal defense he
(DARREN MEADE) believed they provided TRACEY RICHTER, but that ANNA RICHTER
stopped him from doing such because, according to ANNA RICHTER, TRACEY
RICHTER's criminal defense attorney(s) planned to admit to some level of ineffectiveness in
TRACEY RICHTER's Post Conviction Relief proceedings. Also, in addition to paying
DARREN MEADE, phone records show that from between April2012 and December 2013,
there were 120 phone calls made between DARREN MEADE's Sprint PCS mobile phone
and ANNA RICHTER's Verizon Wireless phone No. (515) 401-8926, totaling approximately
43 hours of total talk time.
Furthermore, your applicant cannot think of any reason why information about any of the
State's witnesses CHILDREN (not referring to N.R. or M.R.) would be needed for any
legitimate purpose having to do with TRACEY RICHTER's legal defense.
EXTORTION
A person commits extortion if the person does any of the following with the purpose of
obtaining for oneself or another anything of V<JIUe, tangible or intangible, including labor or
services, or conspires to do the same: threatens to inflict physical injury on some person, or
to commit any public offense; threatens to accuse another of a public offense; threatens to
expose any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; threatens to harm the credit or business
or professional reputation of any person; threatens to take or withhold action as a public
officer or employee, or to cause some public official or employee to take or withhold action;
threatens to testify or provide information or to withhold testimony or information with
respect to another's legal claim or defense; threatens to wrongfully injure the property of
another. Extortion is a Class "D" Felony. IowA CODE 711.4 (2013)
108
During at least two prison visits between TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER at the
Iowa women's prison in Mitchellville, the two conspired to use BERT PITMAN to threaten to
expose State's witness Dr. John Pitman to hatred, ridicule and contempt. Specifically, the
two plotted to have BERT PITMAN tell Dr. John Pitman that unless Dr. John Pitman
recanted and I or changed the testimony he gave in TRACEY RICHTER's murder trial (or in
TRACEY RICHTER's own words "play ball"), TRACEY RICHTER, ANNA RICHTER, and I
or BERT PITMAN would give Dr. John Pitman's wife, Lisa Pitman, personal, confidential,
and sensitive information about Dr. John Pitman and his former girlfriend, Allisan Tucker, for
Lisa Pitman to use against Dr. John Pitman in their pending divorce proceedings.
The statements made by TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER concerning their plan to
extort Dr. John Pitman were not cherry-picked from a years worth of prison visits. The
twenty or so prison visits that were recorded, occurred between February and March 2014.
The recordings for half of the visits are not audible. TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA
RICHTER discussed their "plan" to extort and harass Dr. John Pitman in four or five of the
ten recordings that were audible.
It is clear from ANNA RICHTER's and BERT PITMAN's e-mail communications with ANNA
RICHTER, specifically, his e-mail containing the letter he had ANNA RICHTER review
before he personally handed the same to Dr. John Pitman, that ANNA RICHTER relayed
TRACEY RICHTER's orders to BERT PITMAN, which would be an overt act in furtherance
of the conspiracy.
Also, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT agents I employees DARREN MEADE and I or
YAGHOBI contacted Dr. John Pitman and offered to remove all RIPOFF REPORT
complaints about him for $10,000, which were created and published by DARREN MEADE
and ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT, DARREN MEADE, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF
extorted Dr. John Pitman.
RIPOFF REPORT I XCENTRIC VENTURES' conduct bears a reasonable relation to a
legitimate state interest, which is letting potential I future witnesses in Iowa feel they can
come forward and give full (complete) and accurate testimony without fear of having their
personal and professional lives destroyed by out-of-state cyber hitmen hired by, and I or
working at the direction of the person against whom they are testifying. IowA CODE 803.1
(2014)
Furthermore, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT provided free advertising space on over
1.8 Million pages of his website to the TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER who are
Iowa residents, as consideration for their efforts in the conspiracy. Regardless, as
discussed below, DARREN MEADE's and ED MAGEDSON's I RIPOFF REPORT's
extortion of Dr. John Pitman can be used to prove it or its agents have engaged in Ongoing
109
Criminal Conduct I Specified Unlawful Activity, which is "any act, including any preparatory
or completed offense, committed for financial gain on a continuing basis, that is punishable
as an indictable offense under the laws of the state in which it occurred and under the laws
of this state." IOWA CODE 706A.1 (5) (2013)
Additionally, as discussed earlier, the evidence strongly suggests RIPOFF REPORT and I
or its agents or employees created defamatory RIPOFF REPORT complaints concerning
Dr. Richard Weiss, Global Legal Resources, LLP, Westlake Financial Services, Payment
Systems Corp, Dr. Gary Motykie, and Dr. Payam John Kahen, and then reached out to help
them mitigate I correct the damage it appears RIPOFF REPORT and I or its agents or
employees caused.
OBSTRUCTING PROSECUTION
"A person who, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or
defense of any person, knowingly ... makes available false evidence or furnishes false
information with the intent that it be used in the trial of that case, or conspires to do the
same, commits an aggravated misdemeanor. IowA CoDE 719.3, 706.1 (2013) In Iowa, an
aggravated misdemeanor is an indictable offense. Iowa Cons!. Art. 1 11; IowA CoDE
903.1 (2) (2013); Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.4(2) (2013)
DARREN MEADE knowingly made available false evidence and I or furnished false
information with the intent that said evidence I information be used in the proceedings
following TRACEY RICHTER's murder conviction (e.g., direct appeal and Post Conviction
Relief), when DARREN MEADE contacted SCA Smith in April 2012, and alleged he
provided information to law enforcement in Iowa proving TRACEY RICHTER's second exhusband, Michael Roberts, not TRACEY RICHTER, was responsible for Dustin Wehde's
death. Because around the same time DARREN MEADE supposedly contacted law
enforcement in Iowa, DARREN MEADE was conspiring with two convicted felons to publicly
accuse Michael Roberts of attacking his wife, TRACEY RICHTER, to "pressure" and coerce
Michael Roberts into handing his business, Rexxfield, over to DARREN MEADE and his
felonious "partners." Despite this, after DARREN MEADE learned the convicted felons had
cut him out of their criminal enterprise and began his frenzied whistleblowing campaign, he
and Michael Roberts, for a brief time, enjoyed amicable relationship, which lasted up until
October 28, 2011 (five days into TRACEY RICHTER's murder trial), when Michael Roberts
refused to give DARREN MEADE money.
DARREN MEADE has told law enforcement and news media that back in 2010, Michael
Roberts provided DARREN MEADE information that implicated him in Dustin Wehde's
110
murder and I or would serve to exonerate TRACEY RICHTER. For example, in his
September 9, 2012, RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. 938843, DARREN MEADE claimed
Michael Roberts showed DARREN MEADE the crime scene photographs back in 2010.
However, as discussed earlier, according to e-mail communications between DARREN
MEADE and his convicted felon partner, ADAM ZUCKERMAN, shows that DARREN
MEADE did not even know about Dustin Wehde's murder until 2011.
TRACEY RICHTER's mother, ANNA RICHTER, and TRACEY RICHTER's fiance,
RUSSELL SCHERTZ, were aware of DARREN MEADE's aforementioned efforts, as
DARREN MEADE copied them both in on his (DARREN MEADE's) e-mails to SCA Smith.
Phone records show that both ANNA RICHTER and RUSSELL SCHERTZ communicated
with DARREN MEADE before he (DARREN MEADE) provided the false information I
evidence about Michael Roberts to SCA Smith. Most telling, however, is that in August
2011, RUSSELL SCHERTZ, and possibly ANNA RICHTER, believed DARREN MEADE to
be "unstable" and crazy, and planned to use Michael Roberts's then-amicable association
with DARREN MEADE against Michael Roberts in TRACEY RICHTER's custody
proceedings. In fact, on or around August 26, 2011, RUSSELL SCHERTZ and TRACEY
RICHTER discussed DARREN MEADE's February 2011 e-mails to convicted felon ADAM
ZUCKERMAN, in which DARREN MEADE threatened to use a 9mm to intimidate Michael
Roberts' employee with a 9mm pistol and suggested that he and his other felonious
partners should publicly accuse Michael Roberts of child molestation and attempting to kill
TRACEY RICHTER all for the purpose of pressuring and intimidating Michael Roberts into
surrendering his company. Despite knowing where DARREN MEADE had been and what
he was capable of doing, RUSSELL SCHERTZ, ANNA RICHTER, TRACEY RICHTER, and
others provided DARREN MEADE with information and documents knowing he planned to
use the same to attack the State's witnesses on RIPOFF REPORT.
There is only one reason why DARREN MEADE would provide false exculpatory evidence
to the prosecutor responsible for convicting TRACEY RICHTER is that it be used in
TRACEY RICHTER's then-pending direct appeal, and subsequent PCR to obtain a new
trial. The specific allegations DARREN MEADE made against Michael Roberts in his
communications to SCA Smith, if not pure fiction, would I could undermine the I a juries'
decision to convict TRACEY RICHTER for murder.
SOLICITATION
A person solicits another person to commit a felony or aggravated misdemeanor when the
person commands, entreats, or otherwise attempts to persuade the other person to commit
a particular felony or aggravated misdemeanor, with the intent that such act be done and
111
under circumstances which corroborates that intent by clear and convincing evidence. A
person who solicits another person to commit a felony of any class commits a class "D"
felony. A person who solicits another person to commit an aggravated misdemeanor
commits an aggravated misdemeanor. IowA CoDE 705.1 (2013)
It would be easier to list the phone and prison conversations between TRACEY RICHTER
and ANNA RICHTER in which TRACEY RICHTER did not solicit ANNA RICHTER and
others to commit and I or aid and abet an indictable offense and I or conspire to do the
same in some way or another.
ONGOING CRIMINAL CONDUCT
It is unlawful for a person to commit, or conspire to commit specified unlawful activity as

defined in section 706A.1. IOWA CODE 706A.2(4) (2013). "Specified unlawful activity"
means any act, including any preparatory or completed offense, committed for financial gain
on a continuing basis, that is punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of the state
in which it occurred and under the laws of this state. IOWA CODE 706A.1 (5) A person who
engages in "Specified unlawful activity" commits a class "B" felony. IOWA CoDE 706A.4
(2013). The maximum sentence for any person convicted of a class "B" felony shall be
confinement in prison for no more than twenty-five years. IOWA CoDE 703.1 (2013)
All the above-mentioned crimes are indictable offenses. The following demonstrates said
crimes were committed for financial gain on a continuing basis:
DARREN MEADE has been obstructing the State's prosecution of TRACEY RICHTER and
has been tampering with the State's witness beginning as early as January 2012, through
as recently as June 2014, and has been paid by ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT and
ANNA RICHTER to do such.
DARREN MEADE, along with others, from June 2010, through February 2011, embezzled
over one million dollars from Progenex. Embezzlement or theft is punishable as an
indictable offense under the laws of the state of California and Iowa. IOWA CoDE 714.1
(2013)
Information obtained by law enforcement coupled with DARREN MEADE's own admissions,
including DARREN MEADE's May 9, 2012, e-mail to SCA Smith in which he wrote that he
was receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (proving he had a medical and financial
obstacles preventing him from testifying before the Sac County Grand Jury), demonstrates
that DARREN MEADE has been I is using the California Department of Health care Services
(DHCS) (California Medicaid), which means he probable never disclosed the $80,000-plus
112
paid to him by RIPOFF REPORT from December 2011 through April 2014, or the
thousands of dollars paid to him by convicted felon ADAM ZUCKERMAN to harass and
defame a witness online back in 2010. In a February 2, 2011, e-mail to one of his felonious
partners, DARREN MEADE wrote the following: "An FYI, the reason I keep my pay and
things under raps is !hall lost health insurance when everything happened. In order to keep
ill can never have more than $800.00 in any bank account."
ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT, as noted earlier in this affidavit, derive financial
benefit and income by selling advertisement space on RIPOFF REPORT and through its
"Corporate Advocacy Program" and its "Verified" program, both of which are expensive
services provided solely by RIPOFF REPORT. An analysis of Ripoffreport.com revenue and
bank records since 2011, suggests that between $5,000 to $10,000 per month worth of
advertising is being provided by ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT and DARREN
MEADE to TRACEY RICHTER, ANNA RICHTER, and TRACEY RICHTER's followers. The
real value of this advertising space could be considerably higher, but, absent a
comprehensive accounting, only a baseline estimate can be provided.
As mentioned above, on January 8, 2013, ED MAGEDSON told private investigator Tina
Church, "Alii want .. I want to do is anything that helps free Tracey- I am willing to featuring
articles and place advertisements for the cause on my website (www.RipOffReport.com).
Since September 9, 2012, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT inserted DARREN
MEADE's RIPOFF REPORT complaint No. NUMBER as a "featured report" on all its 1.8
million webpages I complaints. While creating the above-mentioned RIPOFF REPORT
complaint with journalist Glenn Puit, ED MAGEDSON told DARREN MEADE that Glenn
Puit's complaint would not be published on RIPOFF REPORT as a featured report because
it provided "NO BENEFIT TO RIPOFF REPORT." Thus, by negative implication, DARREN
MEADE's September 9, 2012, RIPOFF REPORT complaint (No. 938843), and its rebuttals I
add-on complaints, which has been a featured report on RIPOFF REPORT since
September 9, 2012, benefit ED MAG EDSON I RIPOFF REPORT.
Additionally, information obtained by law enforcement shows that ED MAGEDSON I
RIPOFF REPORT is using the buzz generated by his and DARREN MEADE RIPOFF
REPORT complaints about the State's witnesses to raise money for TRACEY RICHTER's
legal defense. Specifically, on February 28, 2014, during a prison visit, ANNA RICHTER
told TRACEY RICHTER that one of her two new attorneys said TRACEY RICHTER and
ANNA RICHTER needed to create a trust fund for the money donated to TRACEY
RICHTER for her legal defense I Post Conviction Relief (PCR) proceedings, because the
attorney did not want SCA Smith to garnish these funds. ANNA RICHTER said TRACEY
RICHTER's attorney said she did not want SCA Smith to garnish these funds. Furthermore,
113
the evidence suggests that ED MAGEDSON hired a former RIPOFF REPORT attorney to
help TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA RICHTER.
In Iowa "a public or private corporation, partnership, or other voluntary association shall
have the same level of culpability as an individual committing the crime when any of the
following is true: The conduct constituting the offense consists of an omission to discharge a
specific duty or an affirmative performance imposed on the accused by law. The conduct or
act constituting the offense is committed by an agent, officer, director, or employee of the
accused while acting within the scope of the authority of the agent, officer, director or
employee and in behalf of the accused and when said act or conduct is authorized,
requested, or tolerated by the board of directors or by a high managerial agent. "High
managerial agent" means an officer of the corporation, partner, or other agent in a position
of comparable authority with respect to the formulation of policy or the supervision in a
managerial capacity of subordinate employees." IOWA CODE 703.5 (2013)
The above-listed crimes were committed with the intent to produce detrimental effects within
Iowa, and the subject(s) actions did produce detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness
Tampering is an indictable offense. Iowa Code 708.7(1) (2013); Iowa Code 720.4
{2013); I.A. Const. art. I, 11; IOWA CODE 903.1(2) {2013); Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.4(2); IOWA
CODE 803.1 (2013)
After ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT and DARREN MEADE learned that SCA Smith
had their mobile phone records and DARREN MEADE's deposition, which would have been
around July 2012, and was actively investigating them for witness tampering, rather than
cease and desist from their defamatory publications, a little over a month after learning of
SCA Smith's investigation, ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT and DARREN MEADE
intensified their criminal actions by publishing false information about the State's witnesses
and SCA Smith, with a photograph of SCA Smith on each of the 1.8 million RIPOFF
REPORT pages as one of its "featured reports (which, according to ED MAGEDSON and
DARREN MEADE, benefits RIPOFF REPORT)," which was done to intimidate SCA Smith
into ending his investigation of RIPOFF REPORT employee I agent DARREN MEADE's
aforementioned ongoing criminal conduct and to manufacture a preemptive legal defense
(i.e., that SCA Smith's investigation of ED MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT and DARREN
MEADE was retaliatory in nature and in violation of their civil rights). Ironically, the
continuance and escalation of these deliberate actions created an undeniable duty
compelling SCA Smith - the chief law enforcement officer of Sac County - to take decisive
steps to terminate the malignant precedent that will be created by allowing the actions of not
only these individuals, but potential imitators as well, to forever impair the efficient pursuit of
criminal justice in Sac County. Ignoring the obvious potential injury to our criminal justice
114
system would be a breach of SCA Smith's duties to the State's witnesses and the citizens of
Sac County.
No greater threat to our criminal justice system exists than allowing convicted, incarcerated
murderers (criminals), and their friends and family, to destroy the livelihoods and personal
reputations of the people brave enough to testify against them in open court. Considering
the foregoing, specifically, the extent to which these witnesses have been damaged socially
and professionally by TRACEY RICHTER, ANNA RICHTER, DARREN MEADE, ED
MAGEDSON and others, your applicant doubts few, if any of the State's witnesses, if given
the option to do it again, would come forward and give full, accurate testimony against
TRACEY RICHTER. In fact, many have expressed as much.
The information contained herein gives your applicant reason to believe that as TRACEY
RICHTER's chances for a new trial decrease, the more drastic her and her family's and
friends' actions will become. As mentioned above, TRACEY RICHTER and ANNA
RICHTER have already identified the WEAKEST juror. Your applicant fears it is only a
matter of time before the jurors who convicted TRACEY RICHTER will join the State's
witnesses on RIPOFF REPORT or will face other like-retaliation.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY

Information contained in the electronic storage devices ("electronic files"), such as
computers, iPads, smartphones, etc. can be recovered months or even years after it has
been downloaded, deleted or viewed via the internet. Such information may include
computer applications, images, text, programs, encryption routines and algorithms, or other
data that may be decoded, reconstituted, or otherwise manipulated to produce, utilize,
transmit, receive, encrypt, encode, or display such images, text, programs, encryption
routines, and algorithms.
Electronic files downloaded to a hard drive I electronic storage device can be stored for
years at little or no cost. Even when files have been deleted, they can be recovered months
or years later using readily available forensics tools. This is so because when a person
"deletes" a file on most electronic storage devices, the data contained in the file does not
actually disappear; rather, that data remains until it is overwritten by new data. Therefore,
deleted files, or remnants of deleted files, may reside in free space or slack space-that is, in
space on the hard drive I digital storage device that is not currently being used by an active
file-for long periods of time before they are overwritten. In addition, in many instances the
operating system for a computer I digital storage device may also keep a record of deleted
data in a "swap" or "recovery" file.
115
The Internet is a global network of computers and other electronic devices that
communicate with each other. Files that have been viewed via the Internet are typically
automatically downloaded into a temporary Internet directory or "cache." The internet
browser often maintains a fixed amount of hard drive space devoted to these files, and the
flies are only overwritten as they are replaced with more recently viewed Internet pages or if
a user takes steps to delete them.
An Internet Protocol address (or simply "IP address") is a unique numeric address used by
computers on the Internet. An IP address looks like a series of four numbers, each in the
range 0-255, separated by periods (e.g., 121.56.97. 178). Every computer attached to the
Internet computer must be assigned an IP address so that Internet traffic sent from and
directed to that computer may be directed properly from its source to its destination. Most
Internet service providers control a range of IP addresses. Some computers have static-that
is, long-term-IP addresses, while other computers have dynamic-that is, frequently
changed-IP addresses. Law enforcement can often find out a particular ISP using an IP
address, and given the date and lime the IP address was used; the ISP typically can identify
the account holder by name and physical address.
Peer to peer file sharing ("P2P") is a method of communication available to Internet users
through the use of special software. P2P software allows users to trade digital files through
worldwide networks of computers. Several different software applications can be used to
access these networks, but these applications operate in a similar manner. To access the
P2P networks, a user first obtains the P2P software, which can be downloaded from the
Internet. This software is used exclusively for the purpose of sharing digital files. When the
P2P software is installed on a computer, the user is directed to specify a folder that will
contain files available to anyone on the world wide network for download ("shared folder").
A user obtains files by conducting keyword searches of the P2P network. When a user
initially logs onto the P2P network, a list of the files that the user is sharing is transmitted to
the network. The P2P software then matches files in these file lists to keyword search
requests from other users. A user looking to download files simply conducts a keyword
search, and the results of the keyword search are displayed. The user then selects file(s)
which he or she wants to download. The download of a file is achieved through a direct
connection between the computer requesting the file and the computer(s) hosting the file.
Once a file has been downloaded, it is stored in the area previously designated by the user
and will remain there until moved or deleted. Most P2P software applications keep logs of
each download event. A P2P file transfer is assisted by reference to an Internet Protocol
(IP) address, which is a unique numeric address used by computers on the Internet.
Searching for information stored in computers often requires agents to seize most or all
116
electronic storage devices to be searched later by a qualified computer expert in a

laboratory or other controlled environment. This is often necessary to ensure the accuracy
and completeness of such data, and to prevent the loss of the data either from accidental or
intentional destruction. Additionally, computers and other electronic storage devices can
store the equivalent of millions of pages of information. Also, a suspect may try to conceal
criminal evidence; he or she might store it in random order with deceptive file names. This
may require searching authorities to peruse all the stored data to determine which particular
files are evidence or instrumentalities of crime. This sorting process can take weeks or
months, depending on the volume of data stored, and it would be impractical and invasive
to attempt this kind of data search on-site. For all the reasons discussed in this numbered
paragraph, your applicant requests permission to copy the hard drive(s) or its equivalent for
each of the electronic storage devices seized from ANNA RICHTER's residence.
Searching computer systems for criminal evidence sometimes requires highly technical
processes requiring expert skill and properly controlled environment. The vast array of
computer hardware and software available requires even computer experts to specialize in
some systems and applications, so it is difficult to know before a search which expert is
qualified to analyze the system and its data. In any event, however, data search processes
are exacting scientific procedures designed to protect the integrity of the evidence and to
recover even "hidden," erased, compressed, password- protected, or encrypted files.
Because computer evidence is vulnerable to inadvertent or intentional modification or
destruction (both from external sources or from destructive code imbedded in the system as
a "booby trap"), making copies of the hard drives of the electronic storage devices may be
necessary to safeguard against any loss (inadvertent or otherwise) as a result of the
foregoing.
Searching computer systems for the evidence described below may require a range of data
analysis techniques. In some cases, it is possible for agents and analysts to conduct
carefully targeted searches that can locate evidence without requiring a time-consuming
manual search through unrelated materials that may be commingled with criminal evidence.
In other cases, however, such techniques may not yield the evidence described in the
warrant. Criminals can mislabel or hide files and directories, encode communications to
avoid using key words, attempt to delete files to evade detection, or take other steps
designed to frustrate law enforcement searches for information, such as deleting web
browser history. These steps may require agents and law enforcement or other analysts
with appropriate expertise to conduct more extensive searches, such as scanning areas of
the disk not allocated to listed files, or peruse every file briefly to determine whether it falls
within the scope of the warrant In light of these difficulties, the DCI intends to use whatever
data analysis techniques appear necessary to locate and retrieve the evidence described
117
below.
Dropbox is a file hosting service operated by Dropbox, Inc., headquartered in San
Francisco, California, that offers cloud storage, file synchronization, and client software.
Dropbox allows users to create a special folder on each of their computers, which Dropbox
then synchronizes so that it appears to be the same folder (with the same contents)
regardless of which computer is used to view it. Files placed in this folder also are
accessible through a website and mobile phone applications.
The Dropbox client enables users to drop any file into a designated folder that is then
synchronized with Dropbox's Internet service and to any other of the user's computers and
devices with the Dropbox client. Users may also upload files manually through a web
browser.
Dropbox client supports synchronization and sharing along with personal storage. It
supports revision history, so files deleted from the Dropbox folder may be recovered from
any of the synced computers. Dropbox supports multi-user version control, enabling several
users to edit and re-past files without overwriting versions. The version history is paired
with the use of delta encoding technology. When a file in a user's Dropbox folder is
changed, Dropbox only uploads the pieces of the file that are changed when synchronizing,
when possible.
Your affiant has been a Dropbox account holder for over 2 years and knows that registering
and using the Dropbox is facilitated almost by the Dropbox Inc. account holder's email
account. Your affiant is aware of only one email account used by ANNA RICHTER, which is
the YAHOO! Inc. email address identified above.
In my research and experience, I have learned that YAHOO! INC. provides a variety of online services, including electronic mail ("email") access, instant messaging, and other
electronic communication services to the general public. Subscribers obtain an account by
registering with YAHOO! INC .. During the registration process, YAHOO! INC. asks
subscribers to provide basic personal information. Therefore, the computers of YAHOO!
INC. are likely to contain stored electronic communications (including retrieved and nonretrieved email for YAHOO! INC. subscribers) and information concerning subscribers and
their use of YAHOO! INC. services, such as account access information, email transaction
information, and account application information.
As discussed earlier, ANNA RICHTER has I had a YAHOO! INC. e-mail account
(anna_richter2003@yahoo.com), which she had used as recently as May 17, 2014, and
that search warrant for all e-mails in the account issued to YAHOO! INC. returned nothing.
In general, an email that is sent to a YAHOO! INC. subscriber is stored in the subscriber's
118
"mail box" on YAHOO! INC. servers until the subscriber deletes the email. If the subscriber
does not delete the message, the message can remain on YAHOO! INC. servers
indefinitely. When the subscriber sends an email, it is initiated at the user's computer,
transferred via the Internet to YAHOO! INC.'s servers, and then transmitted to its end
destination. YAHOO! INC. often saves a copy of the email sent. Unless the sender of the
email specifically deletes the email from the YAHOO! INC. server, the email can remain on
the system indefinitely.
Instant messaging (1M) is a type of online chat which offers real-time text transmission over
the Internet where short messages are typically transmitted bi-directionally between two
parties, when each user chooses to complete a thought and select "send."
A YAHOO! INC. subscriber can also store files, including emails, address books, contact or
buddy lists, pictures, and other files, on servers maintained and I or owned by YAHOO!
INC .. As per YAHOO! INC. policy, chat history including IP address information (logging) is
stored on YAHOO! INC. servers.
Subscribers to YAHOO! INC. might not store on their home computers copies of the emails
stored in their YAHOO! INC. account. This is particularly true when they access their
YAHOO! INC. account through the web, or if they do not wish to maintain particular emails
or files in their residence.
In general, email providers like YAHOO! INC. ask each of their subscribers to provide
certain personal identifying information when registering for an email account. This
information can include the subscriber's full name, physical address, telephone numbers
and other identifiers, alternative email addresses, and, for paying subscribers, means and
source of payment (including any credit or bank account number).
Email providers typically retain certain transactional information about the creation and use
of each account on their systems. This information can include the date on which the
account was created, the length of service, records of log-in (i.e., session) times and
durations, the types of service utilized, the status of the account (including whether the
account is inactive or closed), the methods used to connect to the account (such as logging
into the account via YAHOO! INC.'s website), and other log files that reflect usage of the
account.
In addition to the foregoing, email providers often have records of the Internet Protocol
address ("IP address") used to register the account and the IP addresses associated with
particular logins to the account. Because every device that connects to the Internet must
use an IP address, IP address information can help to identify which computers or other
devices were used to access the email account.
119
Further, in some cases, email account users will communicate directly with an email service
provider about issues relating to the account, such as technical problems, billing inquiries,
or complaints from other users. Email providers typically retain records about such
communications, including records of contacts between the user and the provider's support
services, as well records of any actions taken by the provider or user as a result of the
communications.
A search warrant issued to YAHOO! INC. on May 23, 2013, for e-mails in ANNA
RICHTER's yahoo e-mail account returned nothing (i.e., as of May 23, 2013, there were no
e-mails for anna_richter2003@yahoo.com stored on YAHOO! INC. servers), which
suggests she has downloaded them from Yahoo! Inc.'s servers, onto her computer.
SIGNED and DATED July
1~
2014.
t~~:~
BEN SMITH
SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY
120

ATTACHMENT A
PLACES AND THINGS TO BE SEARCHED BY THE GOVERNMENT
This warrant applies to information associated with the following items and their (digital)
contents located at ANNA RICHTER's residence at 4221 155TH STREET, URBANDALE,
IOWA 50323, all computers, portable hard drives, data DVDs, USB flash drives (NOT TO
INCLUDE mobile phones I smartphones) and the digital files, folders, and other digital
documents I information contained in said item.s.
121


ATTACHMENT B
ITEMS AND INFORMATION TO BE SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT
All information contained on the electronic storage devices, computers (laptops or towers),
flash drives (USB drives), data DVDs, described in Attachment A and to seize information
contained in said electronic storage devices that constitute fruits, evidence, and
instrumentalities of the criminal violations outlined in the Affidavit to the Search Warrant
Application ("Affidavit"), which is attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference.
Specifically, and among other things, law enforcement shall seize any and all
communications to or from the individuals identified in the Affidavit that concern or relate to
the crimes alleged in the Affidavit, and all documents, records, communications,
correspondence, notes, e-mails, addresses or contacts, text messages, instant messages,
chats, Internet history, records of internet activity, time indicators, text message logs, instant
message logs, other logs, user profiles for social media, visual depictions, audio files, and
all other data relating to the crimes and conduct alleged in the Affidavit, including but NOT
limited to the information listed below, as well as and all evidence capable of demonstrating
or leading to further discovery of the same information:
1. All files and information contained in any and all of the electronic storage devices
that were discussed I mentioned by ANNA RICHTER and the other individuals or that
relate to the crimes and conduct alleged in the Affidavit, including any such files located
in a Dropbox or similar program I file on any of the electronic storage devices, used to
transfer I store documents and other information between ANNA RICHTER and ED
MAGEDSON I RIPOFF REPORT, DARREN MEADE and the others named I described
in the Affidavit.
2. All e-mail communications between ANNA RICHTER and the individuals
identified in the Affidavit, which relate to and I or corroborate the facts contained in the
Affidavit and I or that are described or specifically identified in the Affidavit. Said e-mail
122
communications shall include those mentioned in the Affidavit and I or those which
relate to the crimes and conduct alleged in the Affidavit.
123

ENDORSEMENT ON SEARCH WARRANT

APPLICATION

This matter came before the Court on the government's search warrant application. In
issuing the search warrant, the undersigned relied upon the sworn testimony of Sac County
Attorney Ben Smith, together with the statements and information contained in the
application and any attachments thereto, and finds such information demonstrates probable
cause, and therefore, I do issue the warrant.
124

RESIDENCE AT 4221 155TH STREET,
SEARCH WARRANT: TO ANY PEACE

OFFICER IN THE STATE OF IOWA

TO ANY PEACE OFFICER IN THE STATE OF IOWA
Based on sworn application made to the Court, I have found that probable cause exists to
believe that at the place [and on the person(s) and in the vehicle(s)] described as follows:
Included in the described location are any and all rooms, attics, basements, and other parts
therein, the surrounding grounds, any garages, storage rooms, trash containers, and
outbuildings of any kind located thereon connected to occupants or permanent residents of
4221155TH STREET, URBANDALE, IOWA 50323
Any vehicles parked directly on the property or in the street in front of or nearby or adjacent
to the above-identified location, provided that said vehicles can be specifically connected to
occupants or permanent residents of the location to be searched prior to searching said
vehicles.
Any and all persons found on the premises at the lime the warrant is executed to include:
ANNA RICHTER and I or DONNA BISTRICAN
In Urbandale, Iowa (Polk County), there is now certain property namely the items identified
in Attachments A and B to the Search Warrant Application, and that said property I
information is property I information used or possessed with the intent to be used as the
means of committing a public offense or concealed to prevent an offense from being
discovered, and I or is property relevant and material as evidence in a criminal prosecution.
THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to make immediate search of the described
place [and person(s) and vehicle(s)] for the specified property; to seize the specified
property, if found, leaving a receipt for the seized property at the place of the search; to
prepare a written inventory of the property seized; to return this warrant together with the
written inventory; and to bring the seized property before me.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the content of messages I copies of items on the electronic
storage devices, described in Attachments A that are not seized pursuant to Attachment B
SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL and law enforcement SHALL DESTROY (or return the
125
items), and make a sworn return of the same to this Court to be filed at a reasonable time
after the written inventory and seizure return described in the paragraph above are filed
following the execution of this warrant.
ORDERED and DATED July
Jfi__, 2014.
M
126

SEARCH WARRANT:
SEARCH WARRANT
RETURN
TO

Being duly sworn, I, the undersigned, say that I have executed the attached search warrant
and the following, to the best of my knowledge, is a complete inventory of the property
seized pursuant to the warrant:
PEACE OFFICER
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN July _ _ , 2014.
JUDGE I MAGISTRATE
127

STATE OF IOWA,
Case No. CVCV019540
Plaintiff,
v.
STATES RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY COUNTY ATTORNEY
XCENTRIC VENTURES (DBA

WWW.RIPOFFREPORT.COM),
Defendant.
COMES NOW the State of Iowa through Sac County Attorney Ben Smith and
states the following in support of its response to Defendants Motion to Disqualify County
Attorney:
INTRODUCTION
Xcentric Ventures (hereinafter RipOff Report) move to have the undersigned
disqualified is the latest action in a series of ever escalating attempts by RipOff Report
and its attorneys to redirect and obstruct the focus and pursuit of a lawful criminal
investigation and prosecution of offenses perpetrated against the witnesses who
cooperated with law enforcement and / or testified against Tracey Richter in State v.
Richter, Sac County District Court Case No. FECR011900.
First, to be clear, the undersigned is asking the Court to order RipOff Report to
remove the names and images of the witnesses from all RipOff Report complaints not
just the ones Darren Meade admitted to authoring.
Many of the RipOff Report
complaints and complaint rebuttals concerning the States witnesses are authored by
fictitious persons; however, as the evidence set forth herein makes abundantly clear,
these fictitious persons are really Darren Meade and others intimately associated with
Ed Magedson and RipOff Report.
In the below excerpt of a survey contained in Darren Meades RipOff Report
complaint No. 1107324, Meade discussed States witness Michael Roberts as having
EXHIBIT
1
exhibitsticker.com
engaged in homosexual orgies, which Meade described as a he-he Twister:
Meade created the survey and forwarded it to Magedson for publication on

RipOff Report on December 16, 2013, in RipOff Report complaint No. 1107324. Ex. 48
1
Earlier, in RipOff Report complaint No. 1000888, fictitious author Shared Victims
described States witness Dr. John Pitman as having engaged in the same activity:
Fictitious author Ida Grove did the same on December 14, 2013 in RipOff
Report complaint No. 1106912:
The exhibits referenced herein are contained in subsequent attachments filed seperately.
The criminal actions of Meade and RipOff Report have produced and continue to
produce ruinous and pervasive effects on virtually every aspect of the witnesses daily
lives. The RipOff Report complaints are replete with extraneous and contextually
irrelevant details regarding the victims personal lives, relationships, and businesses, all
of which are included solely for the purpose of destroying the victims characters and
livelihoods. These damages were at all times the desired outcome of the reports and are
attributable to the intentional and methodically executed actions of Darren Meade acting
in concert with Ed Magedson, and other RipOff Report employees, including RipOff
Reports attorneys. This is undisputed as the defendant himself testified under oath in a
deposition in an unrelated civil matter (Meades deposition) that the best way to
compromise an individual online is to post defamatory material on the RipOff Report:
[RipOff Report] never deletes anything written about somebody. So its the perfect place
to defame somebody because it will always stay up, and for some reason it winds up
ranking on the first page of Google. So if you want to destroy somebodys reputation,
thats a great place to do it.
Ex. 175
Meade also testified in this deposition that he had recently been paid thousands
of dollars to defame and harass witnesses, online, to pressure them into settling their
civil cases with Meades then-boss, Adam Zuckerman, a convicted felon on pretrial
release, awaiting sentencing for his role in a fraudulent multi-million dollar bank leasing
scheme. Ex. 175
RipOff Reports attorneys were given a copy of Meades deposition in January 2012,
and, shortly thereafter, confronted Meade about its troubling contents. Ex. 9 Meade
would later discuss this confrontation with Ed Magedson and RipOff Report Chief
Operations Officer (COO) Adam Kunz. Ex. 176 As the evidence shows, RipOff Report
recognized Meades usefulness, but could not risk having his sullied history imputed to it,
so it began paying him surreptitiously, and then turned him loose on RipOff Reports
perceived enemies.
RipOff Report claims that Darren Meade acted on his own accord and RipOff
Reports only involvement in any action relating to the Richter prosecution is that it
featured Meades RipOff Report complaint on its website after Meade convinced RipOff
Reports owner, Ed Magedson, that Tracey Richter was innocent. [Brief p. 21]. As the
Court will see below, this could not be any further from the truth.
Most unconscionable in all this is that the States witnesses are just collateral
damage in a petty feud between RipOff Report and Tracey Richters second exhusband, Michael Roberts, which RipOff Report instigated to protect and advance its
pecuniary interests, which have suffered significantly as a result of a lawful protest
Michael Roberts has been using to fight back against RipOff Report. The fact pattern
surrounding this conspiracy is transparent and authenticated by unimpeachable records
memorializing communications between the principals Darren Meade and Ed Magedson,
as well as the accomplices who have aided and abetted their actions.
The chronology and associated evidence presented below will document the
details outlining the evolution of a compounded scheme to use the power of the internet
to proliferate untruthful commentary on the web to protect RipOff Reports bottom dollar.
The core facts which constitute the foundation of the case and their subsequent unfurling
into a morass of widely distributed attacks in multiple online forums, but mostly on RipOff
Report, is not unlike the natural history of an aggressive malignant tumor. It began as
an isolated aberrant focal point, which, over the course of time expanded aggressively,
compounding the injury to the witnesses at each step in its progression.
Although the consequences of these criminal actions are convoluted and not
easily discernable, the circumstances that gave rise to the crimes are quite
straightforward. In late February 2011, Darren Meade was summarily disenfranchised
from his participation in a criminal enterprise that had entered into a contract granting
access to an illegal SQL computer script capable of functionally removing online
consumer complaint reports from the Ripoffreport.com and other online gripe websites.
In the months that followed, bereft of any employment or income, and facing both civil
and criminal liabilities because of his former organizations ongoing criminal conduct,
Darren Meade leveraged two pieces of information which he believed would grant him
an avenue to exploit an existing deeply rooted personal disdain for Michael Roberts held
by RipOff Report owner, Ed Magedson, whilst simultaneously engaging Magedson with
previously unpublished information regarding an SQL injection attack on the RipOff
Report which was discovered in August 2011.
These two pieces of data were (1) an email sent to Meade by Michael Roberts in
March of 2011 announcing Roberts claim to be close to executing a deal with the RipOff
Report in which Roberts would disclose the SQL source code in exchange for
approximately $130,000.00 and a grant of immunity and (2) a copy of the code obtained
from a former employee of Roberts who had departed the group upon realizing the code
was illegal.
By July 2011, Meades financial troubles had become critical and a collection
agency had filed eviction proceedings compelling him to pay in full, amounts owed in
arrears or lose his home in Laguna Beach, California. In late October 2011 Meade
launched an ever escalating series of demands to Michael Roberts for payment of a
feigned debt of $8,000.00, culminating in a threat leveled to Roberts on Oct 28, 2011,
which was halfway through Tracey Richters murder trial, stating that unless Roberts
paid him by October 31, 2011, Meade would resort to other remedies to cure his
imminent eviction. The other remedies Meade referred to became an outreach to Ed
Magedson and RipOff Report concerning Michael Roberts purported culpability in
hacking RipOff Reports servers.
The evidence referenced in, and attached to, this response demonstrates that
from December 2011, through May 2012, RipOff Report paid Meade to publicly accuse
Michael Roberts of hacking RipOff Reports servers; crimes that Meade testified he
committed. When these efforts failed, and Roberts boycott efforts directed at RipOff
Report continued to drive down its revenues, RipOff Report had Meade switch gears.
Following the Dateline NBC episode about Richter, which aired June 1, 2012,
RipOff Report owner, Ed Magedson, paid and directed Meade to write a narrative that
pointed towards Michael Robertss culpability for the Wehde murder in the hopes that
the online exposure of the same would compel Michael Roberts to withdraw from his
public boycott efforts, which had been successful in convincing advertisers to
disassociate from RipOff Report. The specter and attendant humiliation surrounding the
publics perception of Roberts culpability in the murder of Wehde was anticipated to
cause Roberts boycott efforts to flounder. This extrajudicial campaign proved defective,
however, as the mounds of unimpeachable evidence demonstrating Tracey Richters
overwhelming guilt, which was provided by the witnesses who testified against Tracey
Richter, prevented the advancement of this narrative. RipOff Reports answer: destroy
the credibility of the witnesses through a systemic and ongoing campaign of online
defamation and harassment.
There is no question RipOff Report has tried to despoil the undersigneds
personal and professional reputation. However, what the RipOff Report conspirators
have failed to mention, and what the evidence clearly demonstrates, is that this alleged
appearance of impropriety pushed by RipOff Report was purposefully created by
Meade and RipOff Report four months after it learned the undersigned had investigated
and unmasked both the motives and the actions of RipOff Report and its reputation
hitman, Darren Meade.
For RipOff Report to tell this Court that Meade was not an employee or agent of
Ed Magedson or RipOff Report, and that he did not act at Magedsons direction when
creating and perpetuating the libelous, unconscionable stories about the States
witnesses, denies all reality.
The evidence also shows that the RipOff Report conspirators also enlisted
Tracey Richter, her friends and family, and her attorneys to fight its war against Tracey
Richters second ex-husband, Michael Roberts.
As mentioned above, the most salacious RipOff Report complaints about the
States witnesses are made by anonymous or fictitious persons. The evidence
referenced herein shows that RipOff Report and its employee, Darren Meade and other
RipOff Report agents and associates, through various literary doubles, created these
disgusting stories, and / or actively solicited, aided, and encouraged the creation and
publication of the same.
On January 2, 2013, fictitious author Lost Boy published RipOff Report
complaint No. 990368. Lost Boy gave this complaint the following title:
Mile2 is a business owned by States witnesses Raymond and Marie Friedman.

Rexxfield.com is the name of States witness Michael Roberts business.
RipOff Report employee Darren Meade admitted publishing RipOff Report
complaint No. 1009000. Said complaint, which Meade published on RipOff Reports
website on February 7, 2013, is about States witnesses Raymond and Marie Friedman
and Michael Roberts, as well as their business, Mile2. Meade gave this complaint the
following title:
The titles of all the RipOff Report complaints concerning the States witnesses,
such as those above, although they appear nonsensical and choppy, are worded to
maximize their visibility in legitimate internet searches for the witnesses and their
businesses. The following is the actual screen shot of a Google search the undersigned
performed on September 26, 2014, for Marie and Raymond Friedman:
As shown in the screen shot above, the first three results returned are to RipOff
Report complaints associating Raymond and Marie Friedman, and their business,
Mile2, with child porn, pipes bombs, and other nefarious subject matters.
This is the same method of labeling and titling of RipOff Report complaints
Magedson told a private investigator to use when publishing stories about Tracey
Richters case on his website:
[When you publish stories] on RipOff Report and wanted to make them searchableand
if you want it to go to the top of the search engine, all you need to do is name the
city, put the name of the attorney, you know, where you want it to be found by the clerk of
the court, whatever you put up [on RipOff Report] within 20 minutes to an hour or so it
[will] be at the top of Google.
The undersigned instituted this action to stop the ongoing harassment of the
States witnesses in State v. Richter. The undersigned has repeatedly only ever
requested RipOff Report to remove the names and images of the witnesses, and has
specifically excluded removal of his name and image from the relief requested. But as
the foregoing demonstrates, without the their names appearing in the taglines, the
RipOff Report complaints would not have the same ruinous effect.
RipOff Report has alleged the undersigned is out to destroy its business.
However, as the following shows, the undersigned did not destroy RipOff Report, RipOff
Report destroyed RipOff Report.
FACTS SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL EVIDENCE
RipOff Report is a purported consumer advocacy website based and
incorporated in Arizona as Xcentric Ventures, LLC (RipOff Report). The online forum
allows consumers to post free, unsubstantiated complaint reports about individuals and
businesses alike. Ed Magedson is the owner, operator, and EDitor of RipOff Report.
There are over 1.8 million complaints on RipOff Report.
RipOff Report is said to gross around 15 million dollars a year and is supposedly
worth an estimated 45 million dollars. RipOff Report derives financial benefit and income
by selling advertisement space on its website and through its Corporate Advocacy
Program (CAP), Verified, and VIP arbitration programs, all of which are expensive
services provided solely by RipOff Report, which mitigate, and in some instances,
remove negative, defamatory content from RipOff Report complaints, but only after the
customer pays a hefty fee, and in some instances, a continuing monthly payment. One
service provided by RipOff Report immunizes the customer from any future
derogatory complaints on its site for a monthly fee.
RipOff Report spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to weaponize and
monetize these complaints by a variety of methodologies capable of enhancing or
optimizing their search result rankings on Google and other commonly accessed online
consumer search engine databases.
The RipOff Report enterprise markets the CAP programs to the subjects of
complaints on its website, typically by direct solicitation via phone either before or after
strongly urging them to file rebuttals. Recruitment into the program frequently occurs by
unsolicited contacts to a conspicuously skewed population of high-net-worth individuals

and / or business entities (i.e., doctors, lawyers, car dealerships). By joining CAP or
otherwise making financial arrangements with the RipOff Report enterprise, a subject of
a RipOff Report complaint can buy the privilege of essentially writing and / or approving
his or her own Google search result. The CAP member writes or approves between 250
and 350 additional words of positive content that will be inserted into the body of a
Report and also in a known strategic location in the HTML for the Report. 250 words is
just the right amount of text to push the surrounding negative content so far down in the
HTML as to be irrelevant to search engines. Thus, negative content virtually disappears
from the Google search results for CAP members, replaced by the words approved by
the CAP member. Because Googles search algorithms are generally influenced to
select text that matches, between both a web page and the corresponding HTML (that
is, identical text that is present in both), putting the positive content in the strategic
location in the HTML, along with a matching block of text in the Report effectively
negates the harmful effect of the Report with the Google search engine.
As noted earlier in the introduction, in November 2011, Darren Meade was
financially destitute, bereft of any employment, and was about a week away from being
evicted from his residence. With his opportunities for legitimate employment having been
compromised by his extensive history of fraud and deceit having been exposed online
in 2010, Meade was desperate for a source of income. Around this time, Meade saw an
opportunity to forge a business relationship with Ed Magedson, the owner, operator, and
EDitor" of RipOff Report by providing Magedson with information about the ongoing
illicit removal of content from the RipOff Report website which Meade alleged was being
committed by Tracey Richters ex-husband, Michael Roberts.
Meade, however, failed to tell Magedson and RipOff Report that Meade himself
actively and enthusiastically participated in this illicit scheme before his partner at that
time, convicted felon Adam Stuart Zuckerman, usurped the criminal business opportunity
by curing an existing contractual default using funds Meade embezzled from the private
company for which Meade was serving as CEO. Meade also failed to tell Magedson and
RipOff Report that in June 2011, Meade testified to the foregoing, and that Michael
Roberts was a victim of this criminal conspiracy, not its principal, and that Meade
provided this same information to numerous agents and attorneys in the U.S.
Department of Justice.
10
RipOff Report has been employing the services of Darren Meade and
compensating him financially since December 2011. Around June 1, 2012, for reasons
that will be made obvious, Meades Roberts-hacked-RipOff Report narrative abruptly
transitioned to his current one; Michael Roberts set up Tracey Richter for the murder of
Dustin Wehde, and is therefore culpable for Wehdes murder. This subsequent storyline,
which was authored by Meade and validated and championed by Ed Magedson and
RipOff Report, was and continues to be unwavering in purporting the solitary allegation
that Tracey Richter was wrongfully convicted of first degree murder, which, in February
2011, Meade aptly dubbed conspiracy theory gone wild. Exhibit (Ex.)
1 However,
contrary to RipOff Reports assertions in its Brief supporting its Motion to Disqualify
County Attorney, and statements to the Federal Court in Massachusetts, the RipOff
Report campaign surrounding the Tracey Richter murder conviction did not appear in
any of Meades or Magedsons RipOff Report complaints or their communications until
after public attention to the case was ignited by the airing of NBC Datelines story
Twisted, which provided a two-hour documentary review of the case on prime time
national television.
On December 4, 2011, RipOff Report paid Meades back rent ($3,500) and
entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Meades landlord. Ex. 2
On
December 10, 2011, Meade told a friend that he was leaving for Arizona on Monday for
a job interview. Meade told this friend that he had a job interview is in [Arizona], but [he]
would still work from Laguna. Ex. 3 Meades mobile phone and email records show he
was in Arizona from December 12 through December 15, 2011, and that he stayed in a
hotel near Jaburg and Wilk, the law firm that represents RipOff Report. Ex. 4 On
December 21, 2011, after returning from his business meeting with RipOff Report at its
headquarters in Arizona, Meade bragged to Dr. Scott Connelly that he landed a job with
RipOff Report, and provided Dr. Connelly with proof of this. Ex. 5 On December 28,
2011, per its confidential settlement agreement with Meades landlord, RipOff Report
paid Meades landlord another $3,500. Ex. 6
Meades phone records show that in December 2011, Meade spoke with RipOff
Reports attorney, Maria Speth of the law firm Jaburg & Wilk, for over four (4) hours.
These calls were both inbound and outbound. These same records show that in the
same month (December 2011) Meade and Magedson spoke on the phone for over
thirteen (13) hours.
11
On February 8, 2012, Darren Meade and Ed Magedson entered into a

confidentiality
agreement for the stated purpose of pursing a potential business
transaction. Ex. 11
On February 11, 2012, author anonymous published the following rebuttal to
RipOff Report complaint No. 826757:
On February 14, 2012, Meade published RipOff Report complaint No. 839253, in
which Meade alleged Michael Roberts hacked RipOff Reports servers. Ex. 12 This
particular RipOff Report complaint was instantly made a featured report (significance of
13
On April 10, 2012, Meade asked Magedson when Magedson wanted him to fly
down to Arizona to discuss Meades role in developing RipOff Reports CAP and Verified
programs. Ex. 22
On April 13, 2012, Meade called the undersigneds office (Sac County Attorneys
Office) and alleged Michael Roberts had threatened his life. Ex. 23 Later that day,
Meade sent a message to Ed Magedson which discussed how they could use Michael
Roberts perceived culpability for Wehdes murder to RipOff Reports advantage. Ex. 24
On April 24, 2012, Darren Meade knowingly provided false information to the
undersigned to help Tracey Richters mother, Anna Richter, get custody of her
grandchildren, and help Tracey Richter get a new criminal trial. Meade alleged, among
other things, that he had proof Michael Roberts, not Tracey Richter, was criminally
responsible for Dustin Wehdes murder, and that a year before Tracey Richter was
charged with the murder he called law enforcement on multiple occasions to give them
this information, which Meade alleged Richters criminal defense attorneys were never
given. Meade also said that he did not appear to testify at Tracey Richters murder trial
because Michael Roberts had threatened him. In support of these allegations, Meade
cited a myriad of RipOff Report complaints. Additionally, Meade implored the
undersigned to change his testimony in Michael Roberts and Tracey Richters upcoming
custody proceeding to support Anna Richters bid to get custody of her grandchildren.
Ex. 25
In the weeks that followed, the undersigned investigated Meades abovementioned allegations, and, in doing so, learned Meade and Michael Roberts had an
amicable relationship until the last week in October 2011 when Roberts refused to pay
Meade the $8,000.00 Meade had demanded in order to avoid eviction proceedings from
his Laguna Beach residence. These demands were communicated in a series of email
exchanges occurring on or around October 28, 2011, which was halfway through
Richters murder trial. This investigation also showed that following Tracey Richters
conviction, Meade communicated extensively with Ed Magedson, RipOff Report attorney
Maria Speth, and Tracey Richters friends and family, and that Meade was copying
Tracey Richters mother, Anna Richter, Tracey Richters then-fianc, Russell Schertz,
and numerous news media outlets to his e-mail communications with the undersigned.
16
I know there are many blogs out there created by [Michael] Robertsand I think [John]
Brewington, [that] [harass] Google, claiming there is some cozy relationship with [RipOff
Report]. Michael Roberts is on a kick to destroy [RipOff Report]. If you watched the
Dateline story tonight (or you can look online for Twisted NBC Dateline and then read
the information about Roberts [that] Darren [Meade] has, you would know he is likely
the one that committed the murder of his wife. I know you have not followed all this.
Please, dont act like a stuffy, stubborn, butthead judge. Roberts is a master planner
and con man. Can everyone suggest on what should be said? This is one of those times
I think an emergency meeting is needed by phone? I will wait to see how everyone
responds. I did not think [Justin Crossman] and I should handle this alone. Losing this
income is devastating.
Ex. 26
On June 1, 2012, the undersigned obtained transcripts from Darren Meades
aforementioned deposition; the one in which Meade testified that he had willing and
enthusiastically accepted a salaried position as CEO of Progenex Dairy Bioactives
from convicted felon Adam Stuart Zuckerman.
Meades principal responsibilities
were to organize and execute an online defamation campaign against then existing
civil litigants whose disclosures to law enforcement were exposing Zuckermans
criminal activities while Zuckerman was out of custody pending sentencing on a
massive bank fraud case.
SEE ITEM 1 OF SECURE ATTACHMENT - Ex. 177

On June 5, 2012, Darren Meade e-mailed a Sioux City (TV news station in
Sioux City) with the undersigned and Meades aforementioned e-mail exchanges
attached. Meade copied Ed Magedson on this e-mail to the television news reporter.
Meade told the reporter I was hopeful a story by yourself might bring the FBI into
investigating the jury tampering and the issues about Michael Roberts. I do not know
much about the trial, I only know about Michael Roberts and his actions in all of this.
Ex. 27
On June 14, 2012, RipOff Report paid Darren Meade $5,000 for advance
[on] commissions:
18
the witnesses on RipOff Report was childish and immature, but he [was] doing it
anyway. Darren Meade told Anna Richter that there was an unbelievable amount of
lying and corruption involved in Tracey Richters criminal trial. (SW p. 39)
On August 25, 2012, Tracey Richter told Anna Richter that Russell Schertz
was late getting to the prison to visit her because he had been giving documents to
Darren Meade. On August 29, 2012, Anna Richter told Tracey Richter that Russell
Schertz had sent the information to you know who, and you know who would be
going through this information. Anna Richter said there are other things that should
be coming out shortly. Anna Richter said whats his name wanted to know if
Michael Roberts was ever deposed or interviewed. (SW p. 47)
In August 2012, Meade and Magedson spoke on the phone for over twenty-two
(22) hours.
On September 7, 2012, Anna Richter told Tracey Richter that supposedly
tomorrow or Saturday, all the other stuff is going to be taken care of, which is an
obvious reference to Meades forthcoming RipOff Report complaint. (SW p. 48)
On September 10, 2012, 1:16 p.m., Darren Meade sent an e-mail to Ed
Magedson titled Corrections for Report on Ben Smith # 3. Ex. 32 The MS Word
document attached to this e-mail, which was titled Review 2, mirrored what would
ultimately become RipOff Report complaint No. 938843. Ex. 33 Later (September 10,
2012, 9:35 p.m.), Darren Meade sent an e-mail to Ed Magedson and RipOff Report
information technology director Justin Crossman, which he titled Urgent -
Darren
Meade Calling :) This e-mail contained instructions on what content Meade wanted
added to his complaint and how he wanted it to appear on the RipOff Report website.
Ex. 33.5
On September 11, 2012, RipOff Report published complaint No. 938843, which
purports to be the results of Meades investigation into the corruption surrounding Tracey
Richters criminal prosecution and conviction. Ex. 34 Said complaint and its progeny
(e.g., add-on complaints, rebuttals, and hyperlinks to other derogatory RipOff Report
complaints about the States witnesses), among many other things, falsely accuses the
States witnesses and their family members of committing murder, theft, perjury, child
molestation, domestic terrorism, and having sexually transmitted diseases.
21
Like Meades other report about Michael Roberts, this one also immediately
appeared as a featured report on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages. On its
website, RipOff Report states that to become a featured report, a complaint must be
especially convincing. Ex. 35 It is no coincidence that two entirely unrelated stories
about Michael Roberts occupy two of the five featured report slots on RipOff Report.
Save for a few days, complaint No. 938843 has appeared as a featured report every day
since being published. RipOff Report has boasted that its website is viewed a couple
million times a day. Therefore, by its own estimates, RipOff Report complaint No.
938843, which contains links and other references to many other RipOff Report
complaints concerning the States witnesses, has been viewed over 1.2 BILLION times
since first being published.
On September 11, 2012, 3:47 a.m., Darren Meade sent the link to this RipOff
Report complaint to RipOff Report employee Siamack Yaghobi. Ex. 36 In an earlier email (September 6, 2012) Siamack Yaghobi told Meade he would publish anonymous
rebuttal comments to complaint No. 938843 once it appeared online. Ex. 37 The same
day, Meade instructed Tracey Richters family and friends to promote [RipOff Report
complaint No. 938843] and ask people to offer their honest opinion [and] share their own
stories of [the States witnesses]. Ex. 38
On September 12, 2012, Darren Meade told a private investigator that it was Ed
Magedsons idea for Meade to research and investigate Tracey Richters case. Meade
further told the investigator that Magedson promised to promote Meades work on the
case. Ex. 39
On September 14, 2012, Michael Roberts published a rebuttal comment to
Meades RipOff Report complaint No. 938843, which accused RipOff Reports owner, Ed
Magedson, of hiring Meade as his professional reputation hitman. As demonstrated
below, Ed Magedson subsequently redacted and sanitized Roberts comment.
22
On September 14, 2012, during a three-way phone conversation, Magedson,

Darren Meade, and a private investigator, Ed Magedson said the following:
I do not have people writing for me per se, but if [the investigator] wanted to publish
articles / complaints on RipOff Report and wanted to make them searchableand if you
want it to go to the top of the search engine, all you need to do is name the city, put
the name of the attorney, you know, where you want it to be found by the clerk of the
23
court, whatever you put up [on RipOff Report] within 20 minutes to an hour or so it would
be at the top of Google.
Ed Magedson then told the investigator to search Ben Smith, Sac County
Prosecutor to see how RipOff Report complaint No. 938843 would show up first in
search results. Meade told the investigator that Magedson and Ed Magedsons
attorneys had discussed that the undersigned was not acting in the capacity of his
official duties, but was acting more like Michael Roberts personal attorney. Magedson
then interjected, That would be a good title, prosecutor [Sac County Attorney Ben
Smith] acts as [Michael Roberts] personal attorney. Then Meade told the investigator
the thing about [Ed Magedson] is if you ever need a title [for a RipOff Report complaint],
he is the one to ask. Later in this conversation, the investigator asked Magedson how
the investigator could post a story on RipOff Report about Tracey Richters case, and Ed
Magedson responded, You just click on submit a report. You don't send it to
anyone. Towards the end of the conversation, Magedson told Meade to link one of
Meades other RipOff Report complaints about Michael Roberts to Darren Meades
September 9, 2012, RipOff Report complaint. Ex. 40
On September 16, 2012, Darren Meade told the same private investigator that he
was publishing an update on RipOff Report about States witness Raymond Friedman:
So what this really is the -- you have besides [States witness Mary Higgins's]
testimony, you have two other people's testimony who tied in the prosecution's
time line on why [Tracey Richter] murdered [Dustin Wehde], and those two people
are [States witnesses Marie Friedman and Ray Friedman]. Now, [States witness
Raymond Friedman and Marie Friedman] were interviewed the day after the shooting,
and their interviews are the exact opposite of what they testified to in court. But what
happened in between that [time] is [States witness Raymond Friedman] was paid
$25,000 [by States witness Michael Roberts]
On September 17, 2012, RipOff Report paid Darren Meade $500 for 1 transcript
highlighted:
24
Ex. 41
26
On September 20, 2012, Arizona resident Ed Magedson stayed at Darren

Meades home in Laguna Beach, CA. Ex. 42 The same day, Magedson wrote the
following to the producer of the television newsmagazine 60 Minutes:
You may want to look into this story / I steak [sic] my reputation on this [hyperlink to
RipOff Report complaint 938843]. Darren, who I copied on this email string, could explain
more.
The guy in this story (worth a 60 minutes story) in the above link above is trying to go
back to Australia as he is Australian / Michael Roberts. He is also featured in this article
here [hyperlink to RipOff Report story about Michael Roberts].
The author of the above reports, Darren Meade, is located in Laguna Beach, California.
Darren testified to FBI on several occasions about Michael Ross Roberts.
Ripoff Report has helped every TV News Magazine with stories over the last 15
years.
We will never steer you wrong !
[Below] is [Darren Meades] contact
information.
Ex. 43
On September 21, 2012, Meade authored the following rebuttal to RipOff Report
complaint 938843:
27
In September 2012, Meade and Magedson spoke on the phone for over forty
(40) hours.
On October 2, 2012, anonymous author Light Be published the following
complaint rebuttal to RipOff Report complaint 938843:
28
On October 9, 2012, Darren Meade asked Ed Magedson and RipOff Report

information technology director Justin Crossman to store and create backlinks to
documents and videos Meade used to create his RipOff Report complaints. Ex. 44
Magedson told Meade to rename the files and send them back to Crossman. Ex. 45
Crossman told Meade how to name the files, and that he would post links to the
documents so that Meade could use them in future RipOff Report complaints or in other
29
places on the internet. Ex. 46 When Meade and RipOff Report created the various
postings on the domain www.RipoffReport.com, they created an array of backlinks from
outside blogs and other domains to point at his postings on Ripoff Report. These URLs
were keyword-stuffed to cause Google to rank their relevance in a higher search
phrase position. Phrase example: Judge Judy Garland. When a person searches for
that Judge by using the Judges surname as a search term, the inflammatory or
unflattering posts on RipOff Report would be displayed in the top five search positions
on Google. Ex. 47
In October 2012, Meade and Magedson spoke on the phone for over seventeen
(17) hours.
On November 22, 2012, Meade published another rebuttal to his RipOff Report
complaint No. 938843:
30
On November 25, 2012, fictitious author Victim of Michael Roberts Xellex Mile2
published the following complaint rebuttal to Meades September RipOff Report
complaint (No. 938843):
31
In November 2012, Meade and Magedson spoke on the phone for over
seventeen (17) hours.
On December 3, 2012, Darren Meade published RipOff Report complaint No.
977552:
32
On December 10, 2012, Anna Richter told Tracey Richter that RipOff Report
owner Ed Magedson wanted Bert Pitman to send Ed Magedson and Darren Meade
certain information. (SW p. 57)
On December 12, 2012, author Sons Limited published the following rebuttal to
RipOff Report complaint No. 980023:
33
On December 27, 2012, anonymous author Social Forensics published the

following rebuttal to Meades RipOff Report complaint No. 938843:
34
In December 2012, Meade and Magedson spoke on the phone for over twentyseven (27) hours.
On January 2, 2013, anonymous author Lost Boy authored RipOff Report
35
On January 2, 2013, anonymous author Lost Boy published the following

rebuttal to RipOff Report complaint No. 980023:
36
On January 3, 2013, anonymous RipOff Report author Lost Boy published the
following rebuttal to RipOff Report complaint No. 977552:
37
On January 6, 2013, Magedson wrote the following in an e-mail to the

aforementioned private investigator, which he copied to Tracey Richters mother, Anna
Richter:
When you called me the other night you made a comment to me that was very disturbing
to me. You stated to me, Darren Meade told you that he worked for me. Darren would
never lie. He never has and will not be working for Ripoff Report. This is a wellknown claim by Michael Roberts. Again, I have never ever known Darren [Meade] to
tell a lie, or even sway from the truth in the slightest bit. If he is not sure of
something, he will not say it. Darren is the real deal.
On January 8, 2013, Magedson again wrote to the private investigator:

I am not sure if you are who you say you are and if you could somehow be a double
agent. For all I know, you think Michael Roberts is not guilty and you want to try
and save him.
All I want to do is anything that helps free Tracey [Richter]. I want to do anything that
helps those that are not guilty. I am willing to feature articles and place
advertisements for the cause on my website.
On January 9, 2013, Anna Richter told Tracey Richter that the Iowa court of
appeals affirmed her murder conviction. Anna Richter told Tracey Richter said she had
things she needed to discuss with Darren Meade. (SW p. 59)
On January 12, 2013, Anna Richter told Tracey Richter they obtained information
about Dr. John Pitmans arrest. Anna Richter said she was told that Dr. John Pitman
spends all his money on prostitutes. (SW p. 60) Dr. John Pitman was arrested pursuant
to a bench warrant for failing to appear in court for a civil matter, and the contempt
charge was never adjudicated.
On January 13, 2013, Ed Magedson directed Darren Meade to contact private
the private investigator to discus their strategy. (SW p. 60)
Also on January 13, 2013, Anna Richter sent the following e-mail to Bert Pitman:
Contact [reporters name]@vagazette.com, [a reporter from the Virginia Gazette]. I told
him about [Dr. John Pitmans] arrest and other things regarding his taking money from
you and not paying for your college and his girlfriend from Canada. I told him you have
more info on her then I do. Sorry but after what your dad did to Tracey I want him to
38
know how it feels to have his name in the paper and not in a good way. Once we
get the mugshot of him Darren is going to do a piece on him. I also gave this
[reporter] the Ben Smith Website and the new one on your mom which I sent you. I hope
we can get him interested. Don't put it off. This is important.
(SW p. 60)
On January 14, 2013, Tracey Richter asked Anna Richter if there was a mug
shot of Dr. John Pitman. Anna Richter told Tracey Richter that Dr. John Pitman is
pushing his surgery practice into the ground. Tracey Richter stated she hoped to get
more information on Dr. John Pitman and that she wanted to see Dr. John Pitmans mug
shot. Anna Richter said she e-mailed Ed Magedson, the owner / operator of RipOff
Report, and that one attorney, about this. Anna Richter said she e-mailed Ed
Magedson and Darren Meade.
On January 15, 2013, fictitious author We_Miss_Earl attacked the Sac County
Board of Supervisors in the following complaint rebuttal to Meades RipOff Report
complaint about the States witnesses (No. 938843):
39
On January 21, 2013, Brett Collins published the following RipOff Report
40
The same day (January 21, 2013), Brett Collins published the following rebuttal
to complaint No. 970019:
41
On January 25, 2013, anonymous author published RipOff Report complaint No.
1000888:
42
On January 25, 2013, anonymous author 2 Dead Beat Dads published a

rebuttal to complaint No. 1000888:
43
On January 25, 2013, anonymous author 2 Dead Beat Dads published a

rebuttal to complaint No. 980023:
44
On January 30, 2013, an anonymous author published the below RipOff Report
45
46
The same day, the same author published the following rebuttal to the same
RipOff Report complaint (No. 1005913):
In January 2013, Meade and Magedson spoke on the phone for over twentyseven (27) hours.
On February 5, 2013, Darren Meade authored the following RipOff Report
complaint:
47
The next day, anonymous RipOff Report author Ralf published the following
rebuttal to the same complaint (No. 1009000):
48
On February 8, 2013, anonymous author pythrias published a rebuttal to RipOff

49
On February 9, 2013, Light Be published the following rebuttal to RipOff Report

50
On February 13, 2013, at Ed Magedsons direction, Darren Meade sent

documents concerning Michael Roberts to RipOff Reports information technology
director Justin Crossman. Ex. 49
On February 14, 2013, Anna Richter said Darren Meade and Ed Magedson /
RipOff Report planned to publish another RipOff Report complaint [presumably
concerning the States witnesses].
Tracey Richter said stuff is coming out about Dr.
John Pitman. Then, just as Anna Richter mentioned Darren Meades name, Tracey
Richter directed her to stop talking about [Darren Meade, Dr. John Pitman, and RipOff
Report] over the phone, and that the two would talk about it in person during Anna
Richters next visit to the prison. Anna Richter said she had information to pass along to
51
In addition to paying Darren Meade, phone records show that from between April
2012 and December 2013, Meade and Anna Richter spoke on the phone for over fortythree hours.
In April 2013, Meade and Magedson spoke on the phone for over twenty-six (26)
hours. A comprehensive analysis of Meades and Magedsons phone records past April
2013 has yet to be completed.
On May 7, 2013, Darren Meade published RipOff Report complaint No. 1049232:
54
On May 17, 2013, Meade sent Magedson a video he created for Tracey Richters
case. Ex. 55 On May 18, 2013, Darren Meade sent Ed Magedson a video he created
about Michael Roberts purported confession to the murder of Dustin Wehde. Ex. 56
This same day, Meade sent another video to Magedson about Michael Roberts and
State v. Richter. Ex. 57 On May 24, 2013, Meade sent Magedson a link to an audio clip
of Michael Roberts purportedly admitting to hacking RipOff Report. In the body of the email, Darren Meade wrote the following to Ed Magedson: I know, leave Roberts alone,
but thought you should hear this. It's going to be in a video I release on Monday. Ex.
58
On June 3, 2013, Magedson tasked Meade to research
RipOff Reports
competitors and other persons of interest. Ex. 59 On June 15, 2013, Magedson had
Meade assist him in discovering the identity of an anonymous caller. Ex. 60 Later in the
day, Magedson directed one of his employees to remove a rebuttal comment from a
complaint because it had nothing to do with the report and was an incorrect allegation
against the company named in the RipOff Report complaint. Ex. 61
On June 22, 2013, Darren Meade told Ed Magedson that his videos are really
done, but that he could not send them to Magedson because he was experiencing
technical difficulties. Ex. 62 On June 23, 2013, Darren Meade gave Ed Magedson an
initial draft of a flyer for RipOff Reports fundraising efforts for Tracey Richter. Ex.
63 The next day, Magedson returned the flyer to Meade with Magedsons
corrections and additions. Ex. 64 Also on June 24, 2013, Meade provided Magedson
with links to partially finished videos related to State v. Richter, which Meade promised
to complete in the near future. Ex. 65; Ex. 66 On June 26, 2013, Meade provided
Magedson with more excuses as to why he had not yet completed the videos for Tracey
Richters case. Ex. 67; Ex. 68
On June 29, 2013, Meade told Anna Richter and Russell Schertz that he would
be releasing three to four videos a day showing the true character of Michael Roberts
and the undersigned. Meade said, I hope the tone of the first video is not offensive to
anyone. I plan to release one on Ben by Monday morning. I never made a video
presentation in my life, therefore, I know the video maybe lacking a bit. Meade provided
Richter and Schertz with a link to the video. Ex. 69 Twenty minutes later, Meade asked
Magedson to embed this video in a RipOff Report complaint about the States witnesses
55
(No. 970019) and a rebuttal comment to the same. Ex. 70; Ex. 71 Magedson asked
Meade to send him the link for the video, which Meade did. Ex. 72 Meade then told
Magedson he was in the process of creating another video about the States witnesses.
Ex. 71; Ex. 72 Later, at Magedsons direction, Meade sent a request to add these videos
through the proper RipOff Report channels to make the additions appear legitimate and
obfuscate the fact that the two were working together. Ex. 73 This e-mail exchange
between the two demonstrates that RipOff Report employee Siamack Yaghobi was
responsible for posting the June 8, 2013, rebuttal comment to complaint No. 970019,
and probably other like-comments on other RipOff Report complaints.
On July 3, 2013, Meade sent Magedson a link to another video about Tracey
Richters case. Ed Magedson responded, Why did you send this new one? Is it
different? Would this one be easier for my guys to download? Ex. 74 After this, the two
had a discussion as to how Meade should upload his videos to RipOff Report in the
future. Ex. 75 The next day, Meade, Magedson, and RipOff Report computer technician
Justin Crossman discussed this same issue. Ex. 76
On July 11, 2013, Meade told Magedson that he located over 40 filings on Iowa
Courts Online related to Michael Roberts while doing his research. Ex. 77 Magedson
responded to this e-mail the following day the next day. Ex. 78 Later on July 12, 2013,
Meade asked Magedson for feedback and direction on a video Meade had created. Ex.
79
On July 15, 2013, Ed Magedson told Darren Meade the following:
Ex. 80
On July 20, 2013, Meade sent another video to Magedson. Ex. 81 On July 22,
2013, Meade told Magedson to watch the first five minutes of the video Meade had just
sent and to let him know if it made sense. Ex. 82 On July 24, 2013, Meade sent
Magedson another video he created. Ex. 83 On July 31, 2013, Meade sent Magedson a
link to a video of Michael Roberts and Michael Robertss wife. Ex. 84
56
On August 3, 2013, Meade sent Magedson a link to another video Meade had
created for Tracey Richters case. At the beginning of the video, Meade apologized to
Magedson for not getting the videos done sooner. Later in the video, which Meade
narrated, Meade again apologized to Magedson for not having the videos done, and told
Magedson he felt as if he had let both Magedson and Tracey Richter down. Meade said
Magedson could have purchased a boat with the money he had been sending Darren
Meade to create these videos. Also in this video, Meade indicated that Magedson had
previously told him to focus on Michael Roberts motive and opportunity to kill
Tracey Richter when creating his videos. Ex. 85
On August 9, 2013, Meade sent Magedson another video about Michael Roberts,
and asked Magedson for feedback. Ex. 86 On August 20, 2013, Meade sent Magedson
a picture of a flash drive to prove to Magedson that Meade was backing up the work he
was doing on Tracey Richters case. Ex. 87 On August 23, 2013, Meade sent Magedson
a link to another video Meade had created. Ex. 88 The next day, Magedson replied,
Wow, I wish you could have left my personal name [out of the video], and just made it
into a news report so I could have sent it elsewhere. Shortly thereafter, Meade
responded, Im going to sleep, and when I get up I will remove your name, clean up a
few things, and have it over to you around five. Did you like the intro? I plan to use [it in]
all [videos]. Ex. 89 On August 26, 2013, Meade asked Magedson whether the video he
sent was the one Magedson wanted him to edit. Ex. 90
On September 9, 2013, Meade told Magedson he was unable to complete
certain videos for Magedson because his computer was broken. Ex. 91 On September
13, 2013, Meade gave Magedson this same excuse. In response, Magedson
asked Meade whether Meade was able to work on the list. Ex. 92 The list to which
Magedson referred is Meades list of potential CAP customers Magedson wanted
Meade to call. Ex. 93
On September 19, 2013, Magedson told RipOff Report information technology
director, Justin Crossman, the following: [Michael Roberts] is running ads saying he
is going to make up garbage about those that do business with [RipOff Report], or will
find other ways to force people to stop doing business by threatening them with
posting phony garbage against them. Ex. 94; Ex. 94.5
57
On September 25, 2013, RipOff Report filed a lawsuit against Michael Roberts,
and received an ex parte restraining order enjoining Michael Roberts boycott. Ex. 95
On September 25, 2013, Meade sent Magedson information for RipOff Report to use in
its civil lawsuit against Michael Roberts. Ex. 96 Meade sent another e-mail to Magedson
in which he alleged Michael Roberts boycott was in retaliation for Meades investigation
into State v. Richter. Ex. 97 Shortly hereafter, RipOff Report learned that Michael
Roberts planned to retain attorney Chris Ingle to represent him in this case.
On September 26, 2013, Anna Richter told Tracey Richter that Ed Magedson
filed a lawsuit against Michael Roberts. Tracey Richter stated she cannot imagine Ed
Magedson would be intimidated by Michael Roberts. Anna Richter said Michael Roberts
had made Ed Magedson angry. (SW p. 77)
On September 28, 2013, Darren Meade sent Ed Magedson an almost final
version of a video about Michael Roberts culpability for the Wehde murder, and asked
Magedson for feedback. Ex. 98
On September 30, 2013, Anna Richter told Tracey Richter she was waiting for
information and documents from Darren Meade, but that Darren Meade had been busy
the last couple days helping RipOff Report owner Ed Magedson prepare for his civil
action against Michael Roberts. Anna Richter said Magedson is going after Michael
Roberts for extortion, and is taking out a protective order against Michael Roberts and
[Sac County Attorney Ben Smith] because the two were harassing Ed Magedson. Anna
Richter said she found a document Tracey Richter had asked her to find while she was
searching for documents and information for Ed Magedson. Tracey Richter said she had
something to tell Anna Richter about Ed Magedson, and that Ed Magedson had a bunch
of stuff on Michael Roberts. Anna Richter said she was supposed to get information to
Ed Magedson and Darren Meade about Michael Roberts. Anna Richter said Meade told
her he had to work on Magedsons case first, but when he finished with that, he would
go back to working for Tracey Richters cause. (SW p. 77)
On October 10, 2013, Meade gave Magedson any update on Meades efforts in
researching Michael Roberts and State v. Richter. Attached to this this e-mail, which has
research update as its subject heading, are documents and information about Michael
Roberts, his business, and his business associates, which would later appear as part of
RipOff Report complaint No. 19992001 and others. Ex. 99
58
On October 16, 2013, at 8:32 a.m., Meade sent Magedson a link to an

outrageous and disgusting online posting about private investigator John Brewington
and attorney Chris Ingle. This online post appeared online at around 5:57 a.m. that same
morning. Meade told Magedson he learned about this post via a Google alert. Meade
wrote, It is a forum for women to alert other women about men read the screen shot and
towards the end it mentions a 'detective' named John Brewington who date raped a
women in Arizona with a guy named Chris Engle, do you know who that is? Ex. 100
There was no Google alert in Darren Meades e-mail inboxes, and all Google alerts
Meade sent to Magedson previously were from the Google e-mail alert, which was not
the case here.
It is no coincidence that such an outrageous story about Michael Robertss
appeared about Michael Roberts attorney representing him against RipOff Report and
John Brewington, a private investigator who specializes in factual investigations
concerning the activities of the RipOff Report. Meade would later admit that Magedson
directed him to find Attorney Chris Ingles skeletons, and when he could not find any,
Magedson directed him to manufacture this and other stories about him. Ex. 101
On November 7, 2013, at the hearing on RipOff Reports application to enjoin
Michael Robertss boycott of RipOff Report, RipOff Report Chief Operations Officer
(COO) Adam Kunz testified that Michael Roberts boycott of RipOff Report was driving
down RipOff Reports revenues.
On November 11, 2013, at Ed Magedsons direction, RipOff Report employee
Siamack Yaghobi (aka Sam Youbanks) called Dr. John Pitmans surgery practice and
offered to remove all his complaints from RipOff Report for $10,000 upfront and an
unstated amount each month thereafter. (SW p. 84)

On November 18, 2013, the Court in Arizona ruled that Michael Roberts boycott
of RipOff Report was legal. Ex. 168
59
On November 26, 2013, Magedson directed Meade to post comments to an

online news story that involved RipOff Report.
On November 27, 2013, Meade sent Magedson an e-mail about a law review
article concerning internet defamation. Ex. 105 In response, Magedson told Meade that
Meade should write an article about the law review article and attach a link to the same,
but that Magedson would rather have Meade make calls. Ex. 106 On November 27,
2013, Meade told Magedson that the [story had posted], and included hyperlinks to
RipOff Report complaints Nos. 814169 and 691357. Ex. 107 The complaint rebuttals
posted on those complaints by an anonymous author cite and discuss the same law
review article mentioned above Meade and Magedson discussed just hours before.
On December 5, 2013, a representative from the Arizona innocence project told
Ed Magedson that Iowas innocence project would likely not take Tracey Richters
case. Specifically, the representative told Magedson the following:
In speaking with Victoria [the attorney Ed Magedson hired to keep an eye on Tracey
Richters case] at lunch yesterday (which our lunch date was after your phone conference
with Victoria), Victoria, at your direction, is going to review [Tracey Richters] case and
explore other options very creative options that may be out there. I think this will be
helpful because if you wait on an Innocence Project, you will be waiting a long long
time.
Ex. 108
On December 6, 2013, Ed Magedson received an e-mail from Bobby Red, an email from a Bobby Red, which contained a survey about Michael Roberts molesting
little boys. Said survey would later be published as part of RipOff Report complaint No.
1107324. Ex. 109
60
SEE ITEM 5 OF SECURE ATTACHMENT - Ex. 110; Ex. 110.5

On December 13, 2013, Darren Meade published RipOff Report complaint No.
1106912:
On December 14, 2013, anonymous author Ida Grove published the following
rebuttal to RipOff Report complaint No. 1106912:
61
On December 14, 2013, Meade asked Magedson whether RipOff Reports

attorneys removed some of Meades complaints from RipOff Report as twenty or so of
Meades complaints no longer existed. Meade suggested that maybe Magedsons
62
attorneys had many of [Meades] reports removedin effort to protect Magedson. Ex.
111
On December 14, 2013, anonymous author Ida Grove published a rebuttal to
RipOff Report complaint No. 938843 (see below). A video Meade created is embedded
in Ida Groves rebuttal:
63
64
On December 16, 2013, Darren Meade authored RipOff Report complaint No.
1107324 (see below). This is the complaint that contains Bobby Reds survey about
Michael Roberts and his molestation of little boys:
65

On February 1, 2014, during a prison visit, Tracey Richters then-fianc, Russell
Schertz, told Tracey Richter he knew who had published the RipOff Report complaints
about Dr. John Pitman. During a prison visit the following day (February 2, 2014), Anna
Richter told Tracey Richter she hoped Bert Pitman was smart enough not to tell Dr. John
Pitman who published the RipOff Report complaints about him. Incarcerated murderer
Tracey Richter told her mom, Anna Richter, to have Bert Pitman tell Dr. John Pitman that
if he did not recant his testimony against her in State v. Richter, [Tracey Richter] would
get involved and they would give Dr. John Pitmans estranged wife, Lisa Pitman,
potentially embarrassing information about Dr. John Pitman, which would allow Ms.
Pitman to get full custody of her and Dr. John Pitmans children. The information they
referenced is private, confidential information about Dr. John Pitmans former girlfriend
which Bert Pitman stole from Dr. John Pitmans home in October 2011 at Tracey
Richters direction with the hopes it would be used in her murder trial to impeach Dr.
John Pitman. Much of this information appeared in the RipOff Report complaints about
Dr. John Pitman less than a month after Ed Magedson told Anna Richter he wanted Bert
Pitman to send him documents. Later in this same conversation, Tracey Richter told
Anna Richter to have Bert Pitman tell Dr. John Pitman that if Dr. John Pitman recanted
the testimony he gave against her in State v. Richter, they would have RipOff Report
help Dr. John Pitman get his complaints removed from its website. (SW p. 85)
On February 23, 2014, during a prison visit between Anna Richter and Tracey
Richter, Anna Richter said that Ed Magedson told her that he directed Darren Meade
not to publish anything on RipOff Report about Tracey Richters criminal defense
attorneys because the attorneys planned to testify in Richters post-conviction relief case
that they were ineffective in representing her in her murder trial. (SW p. 91)
On February 28, 2014, Magedson directed Meade to investigate Michael
Roberts, and included a curious admonishment
66
On March 2, 2014, during a prison visit between Anna Richter and Tracey
Richter, Anna Richter said she had recently talked to Ed Magedson. Tracey Richter
directed Anna Richter to send Ed Magedson certain documents. Tracey Richter and
Anna Richter discussed RipOff Report raising money for Tracey Richters legal defense.
(SW p. 93)
On March 7, 2014, author Lee Lawson authored the following rebuttal to RipOff
67
On March 7, 2014, Anna Richter sent Meade and Magedson information about
Michael Roberts. Later that day, during a prison visit, Anna Richter told Tracey Richter
that she sent an e-mail to Ed Magedson and talked to Darren Meade about Michael
Roberts. The two had a similar conversation during another prison visit on March 15,
2014. (SW pp. 94, 96)
On March 9, 2014, author wolf technical in sheeps clothing published the
following rebuttal to RipOff Report complaint No. 980023:
68
On April 4, 2014, Magedson and Meade discussed Michael Roberts. Ex. 113 On
April 5, 2014, Magedson directed Meade to snag a webpage, which was about Michael
Roberts, and send it to him. Ex. 114
On April 29, 2014, 12:13 p.m., Ed Magedson wrote the following to Darren
Meade:
If I can pay your business, one that you said you were going to form, and I can pay it by
check and or directly to your bank. I dont think I would have a problem paying you
$7,500 a month for doing 90% Tracey [Richter] stuff to help clear her with the
evidence her mom sends you that youve been working on. I would want you to stay
on top of it, and work as you were going back about 6 months ago (I think it was) * I
dont care what youve told me in the past 3 weeks to the last 3 to 5 months. I want the
stuff for Tracey [Richter] to be done.
69
Ex. 115
In late April or early May 2014, Meade and Magedson had a falling out. The long
and short of it is Meade quit creating working on Tracey Richters case, so RipOff Report
quit paying Meade and Meades rent.
On May 15, 2014, Meade sent Magedson and RipOff Report a past due bill of
$22,500 for creating videos for Tracey Richters case and another matter, and for
Meades rent, which was past due. Ex. 116 On May 16, 2014, 8:42 a.m., Magedson
responded to Meades itemized bill:
I am sick about what you seem to be trying to claim! We have never had a contract for
you to work for my company. We specifically documented that we would have no
contracts unless in writing. You are certainly not an employee of me or my company. I
have been your friend. We have had a mutual cause, to free Tracy Richter, and to
expose Michael Roberts to the world for his hypocritical and dishonest dealings. I
have supported your living expenses to allow you to continue with YOUR work towards
those goals. I certainly never had a directcontrol over the work. In fact, many of the
things that you stated you would do have never happened. And, now you are
telling me that you lost your research. What a disappointment. What a blunder.
Darren, some of the things you write about make it seem like you feel entitled to get
certain things at my expense, like rent and a car and food. I dont help you with those
things because I am obligated. I do it because I wanted to help you, my friend, and I
wanted to support your crusade to see justice in the [Tracey] Richter case. You are
making some statements about being offered a job by someone, the Gym. I told you I
thought it would be a good idea, you should take and help [Tracey Richter] when you
can. It would do you good to have a job and earn your own way. You can still be a
crusader. I may still help you in the future. But, you need to understand, I am not paying
you and I am not required to help with your expenses if I dont want to do that.
Ex. 117
Later that evening (May 16, 2014, 8:21 p.m.), Meade sent Magedson a list of all
the evidence Meade possessed that proved he worked at Magedsons direction. Meade
70
told Magedson, You took me off Tracey Richter and placed me onto first the person
threatening you in Florida and then onto Brand.com and Richard Goren. 2 Ex. 118
On May 17, 2014, 2:42 a.m., Darren Meade told Richard Goren, the plaintiff and
attorney in Small Justice v. [RipOff Report], that he (Darren Meade) would be filing a
lawsuit against Ed Magedson / Xcentric Ventures, and hoped to recover over 1 million
dollars. Meade told Goren he had a lot of material and data to prove that RipOff Report
paid him to author and publish complaints on its website (www.ripoffreport.com). Ex.
119
On May 18, 2014, Meade sent RipOff Report another demand to be paid for his
work on Tracey Richters case. Ex. 120 Meade attached a number of documents to this
e-mail which showed Meade worked for Magedson and RipOff Report. Specifically, and
among other things, Meade attached the list of prospective CAP customers, which
Magedson had given him.
Around this time, RipOff Report and its attorneys reported to law enforcement
Darren Meade was extorting Ed Magedson and RipOff Report.
On May 19, 2014, Meade told Richard Goren that he worked for RipOff Report
and Ed Magedson for over two years, that RipOff Report paid Meades rent as part of
Meades compensation package, and Meades job duties included, among other things,
posting anonymous complaints on RipOff Report at Ed Magedsons direction. Meade
told Goren he had evidence that would prove up Gorens case against RipOff Report.
Ex. 121 On May 23, 2014, Meade told Goren he had information that would destroy
RipOff Reports immunity under the Communications and Decency Act, and that he
would give this information to Goren under certain conditions. Ex. 122
On May 26, 2014, RipOff Report executive Adam Kunz wrote the following to
Meade:
2 On or around July 16, 2013, Xcentric Ventures was sued by Massachusetts
attorney Richard
Goren. Small Justice LLC, et al. v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, 2014 WL 1214828 (D. Mass. Mar. 24, 2014).
Among other claims, Attorney Richard Goren alleged that Xcentric Ventures assertion of CDA
immunity was an unfair business practice, and Xcentric Ventures solicitation of victims of defamatory
reports to participate in its fee-based Corporate Advisory Program and VIP Arbitration program were also
unfair business practices [emphasis added].
71
We will pay what you claim you would have received. Let's say that is $2,000 for the
month of April (which is clearly more than it would have been, but [RipOff Report] will
pay immediately) And each month [RipOff Report] will pay your rent, plus $5,000 in
weekly installments of $1,250.00 for May, June, and July. [RipOff Report] will just catch
up and pay May all at one time, regardless of whether or not you have been doing
research in support of Tracey [Richter] or the Brand.com Syndicate matter. And
$2,500 towards your purchase or lease of a car.
From you, we will need a written statement representing that you have honored and
will continue to honor the nondisclosure you signed, and a release of all claims
against [RipOff Report], Ed, and any of his interests, meaning you will not have any
reason to sue for anything up un l the me of the release agreement. You will also
continue to do the research work regarding Tracy [Richters] cause, and the
Brand.com Syndicate, and share your work product with [RipOff Report] and it's
representatives through July. And, if you want to keep doing that kind of work after
July, we can reach an arrangement.
I think that is the coat and the cloak, and a very honorable proposal to settle disputes
between brothers. I will call you about this to see where you will take it.
Ex. 123
On May 27, 2014, Richard Goren informed RipOff Report that he planned to call
Darren Meade as a witness in his case against RipOff Report. Ex. 124
On or around May 29, 2014, Ed Magedson told Meade that Meade had been
deceitful and manipulative in regards to his research on Tracey Richter. Ex. 125
On May 30, 2014, Darren Meade reminded Ed Magedson that he (Meade)
possessed certain items that showed Magedson directed him to write complaints and
rebuttal comments on RipOff Report that targeted John Brewington, Chris Ingle (Michael
Robertss attorney), Adam Tanner, and the States witnesses. Ex. 126 In this same email, Meade quoted Magedson as having recently accused Meade of [screwing over]
[Ed Magedson] for more than [six] months, by producing nothing for [Tracey
Richter]. Towards the end of this e-mail, Darren Meade cautioned Ed Magedson:
Be warned, I have detailed notes, log files, and some consensual recordings on your
direction of Brand.com in March. Your claims I did not work for 6 months on [Tracey
Richter] and instead tried to shut down Ripoff Report border on delusional, I defended
72
you, we worked together on certain reports and defense pieces. I located attorney's
willing to represent me on contingency and front all court costs. [Adam Kunz] told
me we have a deal in principle, then he changed the wording in the settlement proposal
versus the deal in principle and for transparency, I told [Adam Kunz] one of the
attorney's who offered to take my case on contingency is in litigation with [RipOff
Report]. I have had discussions with attorney's who feel I would be foolish to settle for
what I am owed, but I believe in honor. The attorneys I have both want to see
documents and proof of our history, etc., I know once the horse is out of the barn,
that's it.

On June 7, 2014, RipOff Report CEO Adam Kunz wrote the following in an e-mail
to Meade, which he copied to Magedson and RipOff Report attorney Maria Speth:
There is only one con-man in this negotiation and he doesnt work for [RipOff
Report]. A good con-man needs to remain credible to his intended mark, Darren, and
you are failing miserably at that. You are making it hard for us to pay your extortion
without feeling like real idiots. This is a settlement negotiation, and you are an adult
con-man. Show some self respect. Xcentric made an offer, you rejected it.
You have some explaining to do, Darren. You better quit playing games and start
telling the truth. At [RipOff Report], there is a room full of smart people including Ed who
think that is a waste of time, who believe you are lying, and that you are a liar by
character. We will treat you as a liar and extortionist for the rest of your expectedly
long and corrupt life. You absolutely suck at negotiations, and your vocabulary is
pathetic. If you are going to con my client, please try to do it in a way that does not
make me look like a fool for letting it happen. You were never offered a new job, and
if you actually turned down a real job in order to stay on Eds charity, it only shows that
you are a lazy con man.
Ex. 128
On June 9, 2014, Meade told Richard Goren that he received an angry email
from an attorney at RipOff Report because Goren had listed Meade as a witness in
Gorens case against RipOff Report. Meade told Goren that he would violate his nondisclosure agreement with RipOff Report if he testified for Goren. Ex. 129
On June 16, 2014, Darren Meade created the following autoreply on his e-mail:
73
Darren and Kairos-Meade have been forced to file a lawsuit against Ed Magedson,
Xcentric Ventures and Ripoff Report. This auto reply has been turned on to avoid Ed's
attorney's continual dishonest stalling actions coupled with defamatory and false
allegations. It will be turned off once my attorney's file the full legal action which should
be by Thursday. Sorry for the auto reply.
On June 16, 2014, 10:06 p.m., Magedson told Meade the following: I cant have
you telling people confidential information about my business. How could you betray
me like that when I did nothing but help you? and I will pay you the money, just get
the settlement agreement done and signed! Ex. 130
On June 17, 2014, 11:46 a.m., Magedson told Meade the following:
I agree to the terms you lay out below as long as you sign a formal agreement first. I
will direct [Adam Kunz] to prepare that formal agreement. He is copied on this email. I
cannot afford to have you embarrass me and my business, I dont want things to go any
further. Will you sign a formal agreement right away? I will and I will pay, and send you
on your way to Texas!
Ex. 131
On June 17, 2014, 12:28 p.m., Magedson told Meade that he wanted to accept
Meades offer to settle on Meades original terms, with immediate payment, because
Magedson did not want Meade to embarrass Magedson or RipOff Report by publicizing
embarrassing information in a lawsuit. Magedson said to Meade, please please please
dont make things worse than what they are already by speaking to other people.
Ex. 132
On June 17, 2014, 6:08 p.m., Magedson asked Meade whether Meade had
something in mind to reverse the damage Meade had already done? Magedson
asked Meade how Meade planned to explain away Meades publicly announcing that he
had a treasure trove of information about RipOff Report and its business practices.
Ex. 133
On or around June 17, 2014, RipOff Report reported to law enforcement that it
and Ed Magedson were being extorted by Darren Meade.
74
On June 19, 2014, Meade published the following Tweet on his Twitter account
for all the world to see: Attention: Alleged RipOff Report Victims! Please know I am
available for depositions June 23-27th in Laguna Beach, CA Ex. 134
On or around June 20, 2014, attorney Richard Goren told RipOff Report attorney
Maria Speth what Meade had communicated to Goren in Meades about Meades
relationship with Ed Magedson and RipOff Report.

On June 23, 2014, 12:21 p.m., Darren Meade wrote the following to Ed
Magedson:
Last night you shared that your attorneys will quit on you if you make things more
difficult for them. Are you inferring that my working with you makes things more
difficult? You shared your attorneys are meeting with you to claim I have 'set you up'
over the last six months.
Ex. 139

On June 23, 2014, 8:55 p.m. (6:55 p.m.), Magedson sent Meade a proposed
settlement agreement, which Magedson signed. Meade signed the agreement and faxed
75
it back to RipOff Report on June 25, 2014. Ex. 147 The following are some of the terms
contained in the settlement agreement:
[RipOff Report] represents that it respected Meade's research work to assist Tracey
Richter in obtaining release from prison, and his research work in exposing fraud and
abuse. [RipOff Report]
also felt friendship for Meade, sympathy for Meade's health
problems, and concern about hostility from the alleged criminals that Meade's
research exposed. Motivated by these feelings, at various times [RipOff Report]
voluntarily supported Meade with cash for living expenses and healthcare expenses, or
paid Meade's rent, or provided other help.
Meade agrees to provide [RipOff Report], through its designated agents, reasonable
unrestricted access to all his research related to Tracy Richter, Michael Roberts,
Brand.com and its affiliates including any person or group working against Ripoff Report,
and to answer questions, through August 2014.
In the event that Meade is requested to provide information about [RipOff Report]
through legal process, Meade will provide notice to [RipOff Report] and refrain
from making any disclosure until [RipOff Report] has the opportunity to object, or
seek a protective order, or seek other relief. This is intended to be an ongoing
obligation that does not end when other terms of the contract are fulfilled.
[RipOff Report] will pay Meade's rent for 711 Pacific Coast Highway Apartment 308 to
his current landlord at the rate of $3,000.00 for the months of June, and July 2014 by July
9th, 2014. [RipOff Report] will also pay $3,000 for August rent if Meade is living at that
location when August rent is due.
[RipOff Report]
will pay Meade $12,000.00 immediately after the execution of this

th
th
Agreement, and $3,000.00 on July 8 , 2014, and $3,000 on August 8 2014 if Meade is
alive. Payments will be made by check and sent to Meade's address by overnight
delivery.
[RipOff Report] will pay a rental car agency up to $350.00 per month for two months so
that Meade can rent a car for his personal needs, so long as the period of rental is
completed no later than August 31, 2014.
[RipOff Report] will provide a $2,500.00 payment for Meade to purchase or lease an
automobile before September 30th, 20 14.
Ex. 148
76
Although he executed the agreement and returned it to RipOff Report, Meade

refused to cash the checks RipOff Report sent to him. To cure some purported
deficiency in the transaction, RipOff Report COO Adam Kunz offered to fly from Phoenix,
Arizona, to Orange County, California, to deliver Meade cash, and copy Darren Meades
computers that contained Darren Meades research on State v. Richter. Meade told
Kunz that he would destroy the files on his laptop after this exchange took place. Ex.
149
On June 27, 2014, 7:33 p.m., Meade indicated that RipOff Report wanted Meade
to give it all Meades research on Tracey Richters case. Ex. 149
On July 9, 2014, a search warrant issued for Anna Richters home in Urbandale,
Iowa. The warrant affidavit alleged, among other things, that RipOff Report, including Ed
Magedson and Darren Meade, had been colluding with Tracey Richter and Tracey
Richters family and friends to harass and defame the States witnesses on RipOff
Report for financial gain and in retaliation for the witnesses lawful participation in State
v. Richter. Said warrant is attached hereto as Ex. 102.
On July 10, 2014, Magedson told the Associated Press that he had done nothing
wrong, and, in direct contradistinction to statements he previously made regarding the
veracity of his and Meades State v. Richter narrative concerning Roberts culpability for
Wehdes murder, said that the [RipOff Report complaints] raised questions about
whether Richter was innocent, but that he didnt control it or guarantee its accuracy.
Ex. 150 The next day, however, in an e-mail to a producer from Dateline NBC,
Magedson vouched for the credibility of Meades RipOff Report complaints concerning
Tracey Richters case. Magedson also told the producer that he hired an attorney to
keep and eye on Tracey Richters case, and that both this attorney and Tracey
Richters attorney had informed Magedson that Tracey Richter would soon be released
from prison because of Meades research. Magedson also told the producer that
Michael Roberts full-time job was trying to destroy RipOff Report. Towards the end of
the e-mail, Magedson gave the producer Meades contact information, and told the
producer it would be best if the producer met with Meade in person. Ex. 151
On July 13, 2014, RipOff Report announced it was investigating the allegations
contained in the search warrant. Its announcement stated that If [RipOff Reports]
investigation reveal[ed] that any of the allegations made in any post about [the]
77
witnesses contain[ed] false statements of fact, the false facts will be redacted from the
postings. The announcement quoted Ed Magedson: We will get to the bottom of Ben
Smith's allegations and publish the evidence and conclusions. Ex. 152
On July 14, 2014, in an e-mail to Ed Magedson and Adam Kunz, Darren Meade
demanded payment per the aforementioned settlement agreement. Meade told
Magedson and Kunz that Anna Richter was advised by her attorney to no longer
communicate with Ed Magedson and Anna Richter, and that Anna Richter told Darren
Meade to relay the same information to Ed Magedson and RipOff Report. Darren Meade
told Magedson and Kunz that he would provide more than enough examples of Ben
Smith lyingin the search warrant [and] in front of [a District Court Judge]. Meade
added, If you can honor the settlement agreement that would be helpful. Ex. 153
On July 15, 2014, Darren Meade told Adam Kunz and Ed Magedson that he did
not author certain RipOff Report complaints that RipOff Report attributed to Meade in its
aforementioned press release. Meade demanded that RipOff Report issue a retraction
affirming this. Meade added, I do not condone the publication of attacking ANY
person, online even those that support Michael Roberts. Ex. 154 Later this same
morning, Adam Kunz told Meade he would make changes to clarify the situation based
on what [Meade] [wrote]. Ex. 155 Shortly thereafter, Magedson asked Meade where
RipOff Report should send Meades settlement monies. A few minutes later, Kunz, who
was copied in on Magedsons e-mail to Meade, told Magedson to send the money to
Meades Huntington Beach, CA, address. Ex. 156
On or around August 2, 2014, attorney Peter Berger informed the undersigned
that he was retained to represent Ed Magedson in any criminal charge related to the
information contained in the search warrant affidavit. Mr. Berger indicated that RipOff
Report planned to file a civil rights suit against the undersigned and Sac County. Mr.
Berger alleged that private investigator John Brewington had been publishing RipOff
Reports bank records all over the internet. Mr. Berger added he believed the
undersigned was violating the rules of ethics and should recuse himself. Mr. Berger also
told the undersigned that his client was upset that search warrant was not sealed and
RipOff Reports antagonists were using the material for their own gains.
The undersigned told Mr. Berger that RipOff Report published its story about the
undersigned and the States witnesses after it learned the undersigned was actively
78
investigating its employee Darren Meade for providing the undersigned with false
information. The undersigned informed Mr. Berger that there existed a great deal of
evidence that showed RipOff Report had paid and directed Darren Meade and others to
create the RipOff Report complaints about the States witnesses. The undersigned also
informed Mr. Berger that the publication of the complaints amounted to witness
intimidation in violation of Iowa law, and that the undersigneds goal was to stop the
ongoing harassment of the States witnesses, which could be accomplished if RipOff
Report would simply redact the names and images of the States witnesses from said
complaints. The undersigned informed Mr. Berger that John Brewington, who is a
licensed private investigator specializing in all things RipOff Report, and other private
investigators provided the undersigneds office with information about RipOff Report.
The undersigned also told Mr. Berger that the undersigned did not care whether RipOff
Report kept the undersigneds name and image up on all 1.8 million webpages.
Mr. Berger told the undersigned that he believed that RipOff Report would be
amenable to removing the names and images of the States witnesses, but that he would
have to ask them. Mr. Berger said he would contact his client(s) and then get back to the
undersigned.
Later that same day, after speaking with his client and RipOff Report attorney
Maria Speth, Mr. Berger told the undersigned that RipOff Report suggested that the
witnesses engage its services, specifically, its VIP Arbitration program to accomplish the
removal of their names and images. In response, the undersigned asked Mr. Berger
whether the States witnesses had to pay the accompanying $2,000 fee for the service.
Mr. Berger told the undersigned he believed there would be no charge associated with
the service, but that he would speak with client(s) and get back to me. Mr. Berger never
got back to the undersigned with an answer; however, in his September 4, 2014, e-mail
to the undersigned, Berger stated he specifically offered a national service at [RipOff
Reports] expense to determine what should be retracted and / or clarified. Ex. 173
On August 6, 2014, the undersigned filed the application for injunctive relief.
On August 5, 2014, after giving RipOff Report notice, Goren issued two
subpoenas to Darren Meade; one directed Meade to appear for a deposition, and the
other was a subpoena duces tecum for all documents, computer files, and other
information related to RipOff Report in Meades possession. Ex. 157; Ex. 158
79
On or around August 7, 2014, just days after it learned John Brewington provided
the undersigned with information, RipOff Report featured two defamatory RipOff Report
complaints about John Brewington on every one of its 1.8 million webpages. A person
who, in retaliation for anything lawfully done by any witness in any case, harasses such
witness, commits an aggravated misdemeanor. IOWA CODE 720.4 (2014)
On August 11, 2014, RipOff Report attorney Maria Speth told Goren she believed
Gorens subpoena deuces tecum to Meade was too broad. Ex. 124
On August 13, 2013, Meade told Goren that he wish[ed] to cooperate with
Goren, but wanted to protect his rights andsources to his investigative journalism
related to State v. Richter and, therefore, requested more time to comply with Gorens
subpoena. Ex. 124
On August 15, 2014, Dateline NBC re-aired Twisted. Earlier in the day, RipOff
Report optimized one of its RipOff Report complaints about Michael Roberts by creating
a site link on its website for Michael Roberts of Rexxfield. Ex. 159
On August 22, 2014, Goren told RipOff Report Maria Speth that RipOff Report
had to disclose any agreement it made with Darren Meade. Ms. Speth told Goren that
RipOff Report and Meade had entered into a confidential settlement agreement, but that
the agreement was not relevant to any of Gorens claims in Small Justice v. [RipOff
Report]. Ex. 124
On August 26, 2014, the undersigned learned Meade had recently flown to
Arizona to meet with RipOff Report. Ex. 160 Immediately after learning this, the
undersigned asked attorney Peter Berger whether he was aware that his clients had
recently met with Meade. A short time later, Mr. Berger told the undersigned that he was
not aware of this and had no idea what difference that would make.
On September 2, 2014, in its Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
filed in Small Justice v. [RipOff Report], RipOff Report alleged that the undersigneds
search warrant affidavit contained unsupported and false representations made by the
undersigned, a prosecutor [from] a small town in Iowa. Ex. 161 RipOff Report also
told the Court that Darren Meade was never actually employed by RipOff Report.
Maria Speth told the Court in Small Justice v. [RipOff Report] that Meades only
relationship with RipOff Report was charitable in nature. In support of its Reply in
80
Support of MSJ, RipOff Report filed an affidavit by RipOff Report Chief Operations
Officer Adam Kunz. Ex. 162
On September 4, 2014, Mr. Berger told the undersigned that he was informed
that Meade had flown to Arizona to briefly [meet] with Magedson and an attorney so
they could impress upon [Meade] that [RipOff Report] [was] investigating his posts and
that in order to properly do that, [Meade] should come forward with direct proof of the
statements in the posts if he [had] such proof. Ex. 173
However, in e-mail Ed Magedson inadvertently sent to Michael Roberts shows
that Ed Magedson, RipOff Report Executive Adam Kunz, and Darren Meade were
conspiring to produce and coordinate a storyline to obfuscate RipOff Reports culpability
in the deliberate adulteration of a report authored by investigative journalist Glenn Puit in
2012. Ex. 163; Ex. 178; (SW pp. 68-71)
RESPONSE TO RIPOFF REPORTS ALLEGATIONS

Unbelievably, RipOff Report alleged Meade provided RipOff Report information
without compensation, and that it paid Meade charity. However, the contract RipOff
Report and Meade entered into in December 201, as well as the hundreds of other
documents referenced herein suggests otherwise. In fact, the very terms of the
aforementioned contract contemplated Meade providing RipOff Report with information
about the hack. RipOff Reports regular cash donations to Meade were conditioned
upon his performance of certain tasks, making him an employee, not a charitable
deduction. When Meade quit working on Traceys case, RipOff Report did what every
employer in the free world would do; they canned him.
The undersigned has not abused official process to obtain confidential
information and business information to undermine Defendants reputation and revenue.
The undersigned obtained county attorney investigatory subpoenas, all of which were
approved by the District Court, in furtherance of a bona fide criminal investigation. The
undersigned did not leak information about the criminal investigation and for RipOff
Report to have alleged these actions based on inconsequential evidence of personal
communications on Twitter, which Meade provided it. Ex. 163.5 Mr. Berger informed me
on multiple occasions that RipOff Report had proof that RipOff Reports bank records
81
had been published all over the internet. Despite these recurrent assertions, RipOff
Reports counsel has failed to produce evidence of the bank records being widely
disseminated.
There exists no proof that the undersigned leaked Meades arrest date. This is
just another false, irrelevant allegation made by RipOff Report in effort to obfuscate its
culpability and stall and/or extinguish the criminal prosecution. On August 18, 2014, Mr.
Berger asked the undersigned about John Brewington tweeting or blogging about
something big happening on August 29, 2014, and that his client, Ed Magedson, was
concerned something big was his arrest Ex. 164 The Trial Information charging Meade
was filed on September 2, 2014, four days after Brewingtons supposed prediction. Ex.
165 Two days after the Trial Information was filed, Mr. Berger again accused the
undersigned of leaking Meades arrest date to John Brewington, this time stating that
Brewington had previously tweeted or blogged that it will all come out in the
indictments on the 29th. Ex. 166
Attorneys Berger and Speth, in their efforts to paint the undersigned as unethical
and corrupt, have continuously condemned the undersigned for unsealing and
leaking the aforementioned search warrant. They have alleged that unsealing a
search warrant is unheard of and abnormal in an ongoing investigation. The warrant
was never sealed. Other than the Courts equitable powers, there is no rule or legal
mechanism for sealing a search warrant. A sealed search warrant is the exception. Once
returned, search warrants are public record. It is not possible to leak a public record.
What is unheard of is a party to a court case sending out press releases to
hundreds of local and national news media announcing it filed a motion to have counsel
for the opposing party disqualified for violating the rules of ethics and committing crimes;
but this is exactly what RipOff Report did on Monday September 19, 2014, before its
brief in support of its brief in support of its motion to disqualify the undersigned was ever
filed with the Sac County Clerk of Court. RipOff Report also provided each of these
various news outlets with access to a copy of its unfiled Brief in Support of Motion to
Disqualify County Attorney.
The following is RipOff Report Chief Operations Officer
Adam Kunzs statement to the media:

Ripoff Report files Motion to Disqualify Prosecutor Ben Smith for Conflict of Interest
because he seeks removal of criticism about his performance as a public official.
82
September 19, 2014

Today, Xcentric Ventures filed a Motion to Disqualify Country Attorney Ben Smith from
the
lawsuit
he
filed
seeking
the RipoffReport.com website.
an
order
to
take
information
down
from
The Motion to Disqualify is supported by a brief
explaining the conflict of interest that disqualifies Smith from being the attorney on the
case. The lawsuit is taking place in Sac County, Iowa, where Ben Smith is the County
Attorney and the only public prosecutor.
Essentially, the brief states Smiths performance as a public prosecutor is criticized in
postings on the RipoffReport.com website, and Smith has a conflict of interest when he
sues (or prosecutes) people for posting things that criticize him. A different and neutral
attorney would need to do that, otherwise Smith is using the power of his office to serve
his personal interest instead of the public interest.
It is important that an elected public prosecutor cannot be able to use the official power
of his office to prosecute, persecute, silence or suppress criticism from the
public. Otherwise he could just put all of his political opponents in jail, and there would
be no freedom of speech or the press, said Adam Kunz, Xcentric's COO and In House
Counsel.
Copies of Xcentrics Brief can be found here: [non-indexed link to unfiled copy of Brief in
Support of Defendants Motion to Disqualify County Attorney
RipOff Reports claim in the footnote 2 in its MDQ that the undersigned modified
his request to exempt removal of his name and image from the complaints is just not
true. The undersigned has never asked for his name or image to be removed from any
of the RipOff Report complaints. The undersigned told this to Mr. Berger when Mr.
Berger first contacted the undersigned, and, fortunately for the undersigned, Mr. Berger
memorialized this in a letter sent August 12, 2014. Ex. 167
RipOff Report alleges the undersigned is working with the suppressors, to
harass and destroy RipOff Report, and cited the undersigneds testimony in Michael
Roberts custody proceedings as an example of this collaboration. The undersigned
testified and provided an affidavit in Michael Roberts custody proceedings pursuant to
subpoenas. As another example of this supposed partnership, RipOff Report cites the
undersigneds testimony that he has had tons of communications with Michael Roberts.
Michael Roberts is just one of many of the witnesses and victims with whom the
undersigned has had tons of communications. The undersigned does not follow
83
blogging or tweeting. Again, the undersigneds testimony in Michael Roberts custody

case, which RipOff Report has taken out of context, has absolutely nothing to do with its
paying Darren Meade and others to author disgusting stories about the States
witnesses and publishing the same complaints on millions of webpages.
The undersigned finds it almost comical that RipOff Report, a company that has
published millions of defamatory hit piece[s] on RipOff Report about John Brewington
and Michael Roberts, all of which rank high in Google-type search results, is crying foul
after supposedly being harassed in a handful of blogs and tweets.
RipOff Report complains about Roberts social media efforts (tweeting and
blogging), but then, out of the other side of its mouth, states that Roberts efforts have
failed. Roberts boycott, according to the testimony of RipOff Report COO Adam Kunz,
was significantly degrading RipOff Reports ability to sell its aforementioned remediation
services. Ed Magedson stated that Roberts boycott was having a devastating financial
impact on RipOff Report.
RipOff Report also claims Roberts boycott is unjust; however, the Court in
Arizona found that Roberts boycott was protected speech. Ex. 168 Moreover, Ed
Magedson wrote a book encouraging people to protest bad business:
84
The individual depicted in the above picture picketing is trying to get customers to
stay away from a certain business until that business gives him a refund or does
whatever else the individual is demanding. He is trying to cause the business to lose
customers as leverage so he can get what he wants.
RipOff Report has alleged that the appearance of impropriety requires that the
undersigned be precluded from investigating or prosecuting it. Even if appearance of
impropriety was the standard, which it is not, any such appearance was purposefully
created by RipOff Report after learning the undersigned was investigating Darren Meade
and possessed information proving that it paid Darren Meade to advance their Robertshacked-RipOff Report narrative.
85
If RipOff Report assertions regarding the undersigneds motivations in bringing

the criminal case are merely to exorcise the personal aspersions regarding his alleged
misconduct contained in the reports are to be believed, then its suggestion to substitute
the undersigned prosecutor from the Iowa Attorney Generals Office to cure the alleged
conflict is nonsensical. By applying their own logic in this context, the Iowa Attorney
Generals Office would also be precluded in appearing in this case as RipOff Report
published a complaint (No. 996985) which included defamatory comments about the
conduct of the Assistant Attorney General who assisted in Richters prosecution. RipOff
Report even included a picture of the AAG.
Criminals do not get to pick and choose who investigates or prosecutes them.
The righteous indignation contained in RipOff Report brief (as fact) that it has
devoted 16 years and millions of dollars to advance the first amendment is nothing more
than an outrageous contortion of reality. Champions of free speech do not seek to
suppress free speech for personal financial gain as RipOff Report has done in crafting a
judgment against rival gripe website Pissed Consumer which grants RipOff Report the
right to compel Pissed Consumer management to remove existing reports about RipOff
Report CAP clients and employees.
RipOff Report has spent millions of dollars to make even more millions of dollars.
RipOff Report COO Adam Kunz once argued in court that removing just a handful of
complaints from RipOff Report would cause it to potentially lose tens of thousands of
dollars in profit from selling one of its remediation services services to the subjects of
the complaints at issue. Ex. 169 In the e-mail shown in Exhibit 170, Ed Magedson is
seen telling one of his employees to bring forward certain RipOff Report complaints
(i.e., search engine optimize certain existing RipOff Report complaints about a particular
business) because Magedson wanted to beat out his competitor pissed consumer. In
short, if RipOff Reports complaints rank higher than a competitors in a Google-type
search, then the customer will be more likely to pay RipOff Report for its remediation
services rather than its competitor. Then, after these optimized or weaponized
complaints appear first or second in a search result, Magedson directs Meade or another
RipOff Report employee to call the business to pitch one of the aforementioned
remediation services. This e-mail shows that Ed Magedson actively monitors the
86
complaints on his website for businesses that would be willing to pay to avoid ranking
high in internet search results. Ex. 170 Free speech champion indeed.
RipOff Report, however, is not content in upending the lives of just the witnesses;
RipOff Reports Michael Roberts-scorched-earth-campaign has touched additional, nontypical, collateral victims near Sac County.
As part of the judgment in State v. Richter, Tracey Richter was ordered to pay
$150,000 in restitution to Mona Wehde, the mother of the boy she murdered. In March
2014, pursuant to this judgment, the undersigned began garnishing money Michael
Roberts paid to Richter for a $40,000-plus accrued support judgment he owed her.
Despite a vigorous resistance, the Court condemned these intercepted child support
payments and gave them to Mona Wehde.
In April 2014, the Court ordered Roberts to sell real property he held in Aurelia,
Iowa, to be applied to his outstanding accrued support balance. The Court ordered the
first $3,000 from the sale to go to Tracey Richters attorney, Mark Hinshaw, as courtawarded attorneys fees. The remaining funds were to be applied to Roberts outstanding
balance. Not long after the Court made this order, the following RipOff Report complaint
appeared about Michael Robertss realtor, Margie Robinson:
87
When a potential homebuyer Googles Margie Robinson of Century 21, what

appears is this libelous RipOff Report story about people who do not exist and events
that never happened.
88
Tracey Richter knows she will not see a dime from the sale of Roberts real
property. And if the sale of the real property satisfies Roberts accrued support balance,
Richter will lose the ability to notice Roberts into court for future missed or delinquent
payments. It is not coincidence that around the time the post about Roberts realtor,
Margie Robinson, appeared on RipOff Report, Darren Meade was providing services to
Tracey Richter and her attorney, Mark Hinshaw.
Ex. 171
The foregoing strongly
suggests Meade published the RipOff Report complaint about Michael Robertss realtor,
Margie Robinson, and her business, Century 21, in effort to drive down the sale price of
Roberts Aurelia property. The lower the sale price, the less coin in Mona Wehdes
pocket, and the longer the outstanding support judgment hangs over Roberts head.
89
CONCLUSION
If these reports or complaints were simple factual renditions of a wrongful
conviction, there would be no need to wrongfully and maliciously associate the
witnesses, their family, and their businesses with child pornography or pipe bombs or
other outlandish criminality in internet search results.
The States witnesses in State v. Richter are hurting financially and emotionally.
RipOff Report especially knows this as it makes millions of dollars by selling services
that alleviate the very harm it manufactures. States witness Dr. John Pitman, a plastic
surgeon and Full Bird Colonel in the United States Army Reserves has informed the
undersigned that since the stories about him first appeared on RipOff Report, his gross
revenues of his surgery practice have dropped from approximately $800,000 in 2012, to
approximately $380,000 in 2013, to $150,000 thus far in 2014. He has also had to lay off
a number of employees. Ex. 172
The following is what appears in the search results when you Google Dr. John
Pitman:
90
The following are the taglines created by Darren Meade and RipOff Report which
are contained in the RipOff Report complaint (No. 1000888) appearing first in the search
result above:
91
92
The Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230(c), gives internet

service providers, such as RipOff Report, immunity from any civil cause of action
brought as a result of information published on an internet service providers website that
originates from a third-party user of the service (e.g., disgruntled consumer, jilted lover,
business competitor, reputation hitman, etc.).
The following discussion about RipOff Reports CDA immunity is published on
www.ripoffreport.com:
In short, the CDA provides that when a user writes and posts material on an "interactive
website" such as Ripoff Report, the site itself cannot, in most cases, be held legally
responsible for the posted material. Specifically, 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1) states, "No
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."
Because the reports on Ripoff Report are authored by users of the site, we cannot be
legally regarded as the "publisher or speaker" of the reports contained here, and hence
we are not liable for reports even if they contain false or inaccurate information.
A website operator can be both a service provider and a content provider.... [A]s
to content that it creates itself, or is responsible, in whole or in part for creating or
developing, the website is also a content provider. Fair Housing Council of San
Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir.2008).
When internet content provider attaches its own commentary to online content, it
ceases to be a passive host of third-party information Doe v. City of New York, 583 F.
93
Supp. 2d 444, 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) An agency relationship exists where there is (1) a
manifestation of consent by one person that another shall act on the former's behalf and
subject to the former's control and (2) the consent of the latter to so act. The primary
consideration in determining whether an agency relationship exists is the principal's right
of control. Benson v. Webster, 593 N.W.2d 126, 130 (Iowa 1999)
Most important, the CDA does not provide immunity for the facilitation of criminal
acts. 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1) A website that helps to develop unlawful content by
contributing materially to the alleged illegality of the conduct, falls within the exception to
section 230. Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521
F.3d 1157, 1168 (9th Cir. 2008)
RipOff Report paid Darren Meade around $7,000 per month up until early
2014. Ex. 101 Ed Magedson and RipOff Report directed, guided, and encouraged
Meade to create content about the States witnesses to be published. Before Meade
showed his true colors and began extorting RipOff Report, RipOff Report COO Adam
Kunz referred to him as the great Darren Meade, and affectionately mimicked the
catchphrase Meade used in all his videos about the States witnesses, which Meade
narrated himself. Ex. 174
If RipOff Report is found to have created the content contained in the
complaints about the States witnesses, it will lose immunity under the CDA.
As the foregoing demonstrates, RipOff Report had numerous opportunities to
disassociate themselves from Mr. Meades criminal actions, but elected not to do so.
Rather than initiating any meaningful attempts to mitigate the damages accruing to his
numerous and ever increasing pool of victims, RipOff Report has chosen to eschew their
clear responsibility to take action to end his criminal activity. Despite their contempt for
Meades character and his coercive behavior towards it and Ed Magedson, RipOff
Report has elected to protect its interests by protecting Meade in both ongoing and
impending civil and criminal court actions. These actions by RipOff Report in regards to
shielding Meade from scrutiny in the Small Justice v. [RipOff Report] case are
undisputed. Moreover, Meade had stated in multiple e-mail communications to RipOff
Report that he is virtually penniless even to the extent that he could no longer
purchase food yet he has somehow managed financially to pay an attorney to write a
motion to quash his subpoena in Small Justice v. [RipOff Report], and retain the services
94
of a criminal defense attorney here in Iowa.

Thus far these actions and the filing of this motion seeking the undersigneds
disqualification in the criminal prosecution are the only tangible public steps RipOff
Report has taken to independently investigate the allegations brought forth by the
undersigned in Meades Trial Information. In fact, after learning of the search warrant
and its contents, RipOff Report helped Meade reconstruct the contents of the same
complaints that it purported to be investigating (Ex. 16), and arranged for him to speak to
Dateline NBC, which was weeks away from re-airing its episode about State v. Richter.
(Ex. 16.5)
Incredibly, just yesterday (September 30, 2014), in a featured report (i.e.,
appearing on every one of its 1.8 million-plus webpages) immediately below the featured
report concerning the States witnesses, RipOff Report created a link to a website that is
raising money to support Tracey Richters legal defense:
The most egregious consequences of these criminal acts has been manifest by
the perversion of the criminal justice system in Sac County as reflected by the fact that
as of this point in time, save for the mother of boy Tracey Richter executed and law
enforcement officials, the witnesses with whom the undersigned has spoken would not
come forward to testify again if asked because of RipOff Reports continued, systemic
online attacks on their personal and professional lives.
95
Adding salt to the wounds, RipOff Report extorted the witnesses when it offered
them its remediation services to remove the very defamatory content it created and
published on millions of webpages. An extortionate threat need not be explicit and may
arise out of innuendo or suggestion. State v. Gant, 597 N.W.2d 501, 504-05 (Iowa
1999). There is no requirement that the extortive threat be communicated directly to its
target, but rather, the actor must have made the threat with the purpose of obtaining
some benefit. State v. Jackson, 305 N.W.2d 420, 423-24 (Iowa 1981).
No greater threat to our criminal justice system exists than allowing convicted,
incarcerated criminals and their associates, to destroy the livelihoods and personal
reputations of the people brave enough to testify against them in open court.
WHEREFORE, the State of Iowa requests that the Court deny Defendants
motion in its entirety and order such other reliefs equitable and just in the premises,
including ordering RipOff Report to immediately remove the names and images of all the
States witnesses and the other collateral victims identified herein from every RipOff
Report complaint and rebuttal, and award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and cost of
having to prepare this Response, determined upon the timely submission of a fee
petition to this Court.
____________________________
Benjamin John Smith
Sac County Attorney
Sac City IA 50583
Telephone: 712-662-4791
Facsimile: 712-662-4123
96
TO:
Ben Smith
SAC County DA
RE: The Power of Meta Tags

DATE: Sunday, November 30, 2014
The Domain RipoffReport.com is registered to Ed Magedson in

Fountain Hills Arizona.
It is guarded from BOT attacks by distilnetworks.com in
Arlington Virginia.
The domain RipoffReport.com consists of approximately (2)
million web pages on various cloud servers with in the
UltaDNS.net network, viewable on most all IBM, Apple and
linux server distribution platforms.
Meta Tags are the key element of the web page that Google
analyzes and decides what and what not to display to the
public - based upon keyword meta tag construction.
EXAMPLE:
[Herb Chambers Ford]

search result returned:
Herb Chambers Ford of Braintree | Ford Dealer serving ...
www.herbchambersfordofbraintree.com/
Visit us and test drive a new or used Ford at Herb Chambers Ford of Braintree.
Our Ford dealership serves customers from Quincy, Medford & Boston, MA
EXHIBIT
3
exhibitsticker.com
63 Google reviews Write a review Google+ page
75 Granite St, Braintree, MA 02184

(877) 876-6584
Inventory - Service & Parts - New - Contact Us
The above search result is in top position on Google and

viewable on any device or monitor.
If - meta tags were altered for malicious purposes - the
search result could look something like this:
search result returned:

Herb Chambers Ford of Braintree | Ford Dealer serving ...
www.herbchambersfordofbraintree.com/
Herb & his wife Vanessa are believed to be the masterminds behind the Boston
Marathon Bombing. They operate their business under the guise of legitim
63 Google reviews Write a review Google+ page
75 Granite St, Braintree, MA 02184
(877) 876-6584
Inventory - Service & Parts - New - Contact Us
The search results and what they display to the public can
easily be manipulated by anyone having admin access to the
domain.
Because RipoffReport.com
web pages with similar
the other search engines
the meta tags slightly
dominate Yahoo & Bing,
placement.
broadcasts close to (2) million

manipulated inflammatory content,
like Bing & Yahoo will interpret
different, but Google will still
to force a top search result
If the search result is viewable in the top (3) search

results, most everyone will be able to see the results on
any device.
The damage that can be inflicted with the unethical
utilization of meta tags, is the digital equivalent of
weapons grade plutonium.
Click a Nerd International
_________________________________
Shawn A. Richeson
Senior Digital Forensics Expert
1906 Twilight Drive
Killeen, TX 76543
E-FILED 2014 DEC 01 1:49 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
2RCR04
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DARREN M MEADE
COURT REPORTER
MEMORANDUM AND
CERTIFICATE
Defendant.
COURT REPORTER MEMORANDUM
(The court reporter shall file this memorandum with the district court clerk.)
Appearances:
For the State: Ben Smith
For the Defendant: Glen Downey
Other:
Information required by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.903(3):
I, Tara Gibson, am providing the following information as required by Iowa Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.903(3):
1. The type of proceeding that was reported: Bill of particulars
2. The date(s) on which the proceeding occurred: December 1, 2014
3. The name of the court reporter who reported the proceeding: Tara Gibson
4. The name of the judge who presided over the proceeding: Gary McMinimee
5. The reporting fee for the proceeding: $40.00
6. We, the undersigned judge before whom the above-entitled case was tried, and the
official court reporter who, by order of the Court, reported the same, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is the report of the whole proceedings upon the trial and/or hearing of
the above-entitled cause made and taken pursuant to the order and direction of the Court, in
accordance with Iowa Code Section 624.10.
/s/ Tara Gibson
___________________________________
District Court Reporter
1 of 2
E-FILED 2014 DEC 01 1:49 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Case Number
FECR012634
Type:
Case Title
COURT REPORTER MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICATE
So Ordered
2 of 2

FECR012634 - State's Response To Defendant's Motion To Disqualify County Attorney PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FECR012634 - State's Response To Defendant's Motion To Disqualify County Attorney PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY

DARREN MITCHELL MEADE

REPORTING CRIME Beginning on or around July 1, 2010, through February

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law, by publishing harassing,

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E. EXTORTION On or around September 12, 2013, in the State of California,

charged with such felonies, or convicted thereof. Said crime is punishable as an

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

KARIN E. GLAAB, Court Reporter

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

GOOGLE, Custodian of Records

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

State of Iowa Courts

Approval of Trial Information

Electronically signed on 2014-09-02 11:36:13

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY

The TRIAL INFORMATION and the MINUTES OF EVIDENCE in this matter

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

State of Iowa Courts

ORDER FOR ARRAIGNMENT

Electronically signed on 2014-09-02 11:36:14

E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 10:27 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

CASE NO: FECR012634

/s/ A. Zane Blessum

E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 10:31 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 10:31 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 11:16 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY

CASE No. FECR012634

DARREN MITCHELL MEADE,

E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 11:27 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY

CASE No. FECR012634

DARREN MITCHELL MEADE,

E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 11:27 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

State of Iowa Courts

Electronically signed on 2014-09-19 11:27:06

E-FILED 2014 SEP 22 10:55 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

Case No. 02811 FECR012634

ORDER FOR TRIAL

E-FILED 2014 SEP 22 10:55 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO:

E-FILED 2014 SEP 22 10:55 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

State of Iowa Courts

Electronically signed on 2014-09-22 10:54:47

E-FILED 2014 SEP 25 9:49 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E-FILED 2014 SEP 25 3:32 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

CASE NO: FECR012634

/s/ A. Zane Blessum

E-FILED 2014 SEP 26 10:42 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Signature_/S/ Jesse Helling____________________