Thread: Bogdan Fiedur (owner of scam & ponzi promoting site - Adlandpro)Threatening RS and Critics Again!!!

How do I promote or have promoted ponzi any pyramid schemes?
Show me the proof that I'm behind any of those promotions.
How is this site different from e.g. facebook, myspace or carigslist in terms of the content?
Show me the proof that I have been involved in any of the programs you are referring to and/or I have endorsed any of them or guaranteed. Show me that I didn't offer my user a way to understand that the content on this site is owned by those who posted it and the full responsibility resides on those who posted it and those who are reading it. Show met that users were made to believe that content on this site is guaranteed by the owners?

...from Mr. Fiedur's statement in that hideous Slam forum.

I told myself I would not go back there but I needed to find something. Heather seems your comment has been deleted. :(

Bogdan the proof is in the pudding. YOU ARE THE OWNER OF THAT WEBSITE (well according to registrant records) and therefore you ALLOW all of these programs to be freely advertised and promoted on your website. What other proof do you need? I want to stay away from this and not have anything further to do with Adlandpro but if you continue to allow your members to slander my name even without saying the words SARA G. BLOW, there are legal actions I can take. I am not a wealthy site owner as you are and don't have any money but I believe there are agencies that will support me and I HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS AS WELL AS YOU DO!!!

You allow them to come on in there and say all those terrible things against about ME (SARA GARDNER BLOW). Line them up, bring them on as they always did when I was a member and is why I deleted all the beauty others had posted along with what I had. As a Moderator I did what you would not do to try and stop the latest slandering. You WANTED it continue because it brings in traffic and $$$!! So here we go, we have first of course, Kathleen Vanbeekom - then up steps a supposedly friend of mine Michael Caron, then another Myrna Ferguson and of course now the Miss Congenality of the Deep South, Mary Evelyn Simpson. Oh please bring them on - your footmen Jim Allen III and Peter Fogel, where are they?? Let us go ahead and consider Sara Gardner Blow lost all 'friends' when she left, excuse me, was terminated from Adlandpro.

You know why I am here in this community? Because the further I dug into internet fraud, scam, ponzi and pryamid schemes; the more I saw Adlandpro was a safe harbor for them and you were making money from them. There was no way you were going to stop taking it. I do not believe that was your intention when you built the site but you have not tried to stop it nor have you protected your members from being slandered/bullied/harassed over the years. In fact you told us to ignore them and not say anything back, actually using your power as the CEO to CONTROL our opinions and be able to protect ourselves from the abuse. Another reason I like this community is they DO SUPPORT THEIR MEMBERS!!

You terminated my account just before I was about to delete it. I had already cleaned up and removed forums as you well know. Your members can believe what they like to believe, I SIMPLY DO NOT CARE ANYMORE. I never wished for Adlandpro to go down and I have not been disrespectful to you up to now. The future for your business is in your hands, Mr. Fiedur. I am out of your world, now for the last time, stop allowing my name and my reputation to be slanded on your website. I will continue to fight internet crime and report it to the authorities.

Originally Posted by http://iweb.com/about-iweb/legal/aup

Transmission, distribution or storage of any material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right without proper authorization, and material that is obscene, defamatory, an invasion of privacy or constitutes an illegal threat, OR IS OTHERWISE ILLEGAL.

Which is another reason why Boggie needs to get this in front of a court and have IT declare whether or not the programs on Adland are illegal or not, so his webhosting account isn't put at further risk.

I spoke to them on the phone and everyone is encouraged to make a report to abuse@iweb.com linking the material in question.

Soapboxmom

Shame they deleted your post on Adland SBM, but just in case anyone missed it, here is the Google result for Bogdan Fiedur 10 minutes ago

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=13&...w=1475&bih=763

And todays winner is ...... Adlandpro & Bogdan Fiedur. Scam & ponzi advertising service. by our very own Path2Prosperty !!!!!

2nd place goes to AdlandPro
3rd place goes to Linked In

Runners Up
4th place EDITORIAL: Bogdan Fiedur Of AdLandPro’s Deplorable Bid To Chill RealScam.com In The Age Of International Mass-Marketing Fraud Patrick Pretty the man with the best consumer advocate reporting blog on the internet

5th place http://www.realscam.com/f11/bogdan-f...lscam-com-913/ The one and only Real Scam

6th place You Tube (polish version)

7th place Quatloos! • View topic - Bogdan Fiedur of Adlandpro Threatens Realscam.com Those great guys from Quatloos

Congratulations guys and Bodgan Fiedur, remember one thing ...... YOU started it. lol

Miss "Butter won't melt in her mouth" brought it back LORM.

WELL DONE!! LORM!!

Good idea to see if Google can pick up more...

12/2/2011 5:23:07 PM

Some discussions on this topic elsewhere. Jake Simmons 12:01 PM on November 30, 2011 I enjoyed this article. I am currently a UCLA law student doing research in advertising media ethics and came across this post and went to the related site. If an advertiser makes a claims that regarding their product, the proof of the claim falls on the advertiser, it has never been the legal responsibility of the medium publisher to verify or ensure the legitimacy of it. It does not matter if it's by print, the internet, television or radio. The medium is placing the content and placing it within their publication are under no moral or legal respsibility to verify the claim. What the Real Scam is engaging in is libel and defamation and could be a candidiate for a lawsuit. The easiest way to do this is to put together the people they slander with out proof and pool together the costs of suing these very deranged individuals. This of course would apply to all that made the posts up to and including the website owner if in fact the owner of this site is actively engaging in or has approved these posts. Reply Wallace 05:04 PM on December 01, 2011 Jake Simmons says... I enjoyed this article. I am currently a UCLA law student doing research in advertising media ethics and came across this post and went to the related site. If an advertiser makes a claims that regarding their product, the proof of the claim falls on the advertiser, it has never been the legal responsibility of the medium publisher to verify or ensure the legitimacy of it. It does not matter if it's by print, the internet, television or radio. The medium is placing the content and placing it within their publication are under no moral or legal respsibility to verify the claim. What the Real Scam is engaging in is libel and defamation and could be a candidiate for a lawsuit. The easiest way to do this is to put together the people they slander with out proof and pool together the costs of suing these very deranged individuals. This of course would apply to all that made the posts up to and including the website owner if in fact the owner of this site is actively engaging in or has approved these posts. An interesting argument, but flawed. You are viewing Realscam as an entity, or organization, which it is not. It is a forum, where people can voice their opinions and observations. As has been stated many times, the owner is anonymous and does not actively participate. The opinions are those of the individual posters only. Your assertion that Realscam is engaging in anything is ludicrous. Reply Jake Simmons 11:29 AM on December 02, 2011 Wallace says... An interesting argument, but flawed. You are viewing Realscam as an entity, or organization, which it is not. It is a forum, where people can voice their opinions and observations. As has been stated many times, the owner is anonymous and does not actively participate. The opinions are those of the individual posters only. Your assertion that Realscam is engaging in anything is ludicrous. In a word I would be more than happy to debate this issue with you, you see you must know the laws of the land not state what you interpret them to be. Any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published and if the claim made is false and published is communicated to someone other than the person defamed falls under defamation by principle and law. In common law jurisdictions and United States law, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. The law and act states the burden of proof falls on the individual making the claims and the burden of proof is very high. You do have the freedom of speech in most of these jurisdictions; however the laws in most jurisdictions supersede the freedom of speech when it comes to unwarranted harmful or hateful statements. The fact that you state that the owner of Real Scam is not involved tells me you have some type of contact with them to know this and if in fact he/she is not involved would mean that they are just the broadcasting medium and therefore fall under the broadcasters code if they have a legal statement on their site that they do not endorse or support the statements made by members. The FCC which covers the legislation of broadcasters and is careful to not become involved with the broadcasters First Amendment Rights unless they broadcast hate, defamation, slander or libel. There is such a Legal link on the Adlandpro site stating the responsibilities of the members or customers postings but it appears you have chosen to ignore that and make implications which my friend is in fact criminal. Personally I have asked others in my class to look into this as part of our test studies. You and your friends may believe what you are doing is noble and for that you will be protected; however breaking laws under the guise of righteousness is not noble it just in fact criminal. You and your friends are going down a dangerous road, my free advice would be I am sure you believe in your cause and that's fine but use some discretion and be more careful in what you state and about who, otherwise you will find that the one's you are chasing will be well inside their legal rights to be chasing you and if you have no documentation or physical proof to back yourselves up you will lose.

Bogdan's new crack legal expert is not listed as a student by UCLA and I have confirmed this with the Law School. So he is either a fake and fraud or anonymous so his credentials can't be verified. Wasn't Boggy the one screaming about anonymous posters??? Is this Jake Simmons going to join Adlandpro and post under his real name in order to help Bogdan save face???

Soapboxmom

Kathleen

11158


12460
Grand ...


RE: Why this site is being slandered and harassed for about a year12/2/2011 8:35:39 PM
The former ALP member who started the thread about my ad at RealScam has now threatened Mike Caron that if he continues to take my side, she will put him on a scam site also. That's blackmail. Mike should show that message to his local police, THAT is a crime. What exactly is "taking my side"? This entire community is being victimized by a few crazy people on a harassment site.

This Really DOES Bring in UNLIMITED CASH and You Can GET PAID DAILY!
FREE: VIRAL INBOX is safelist/banner/text advertising and a total emailbox dashboard for easy filtering!

Here she goes lying again. Thanks Mike for sharing that, so now we will make it public as I figured it would be anyway.

My email message to someone I thought was a good friend in Adlandpro. I advertised his website on my own and he had returned the favor.

Mike, (dated December 1, 2011)

What I am reading from your statements in Adland is unbelievable to me. I have considered you a friend from many years and even talked on the phone with both you and Shirley.

Are you SURE you are getting the full picture here? I am very confused about this and do not understand why you would ‘side’ with a person (Kathleen) against me where I can’t even defend myself. I have always considered you to be very intelligent and fair in your judgments of other people.

I have removed the link to your website and would appreciate you removing mine from your website since this is the choice you are making. I really don’t think you have any idea as to what is actually going on. I have every right to bring legal action against those people who continue to slander me but I don’t have any money to do such a thing and even if I did – I don’t want anything to do with courts and judicial proceedings. All I wanted was out of Adlandpro and I am but my name is still being used in unfair practices. Kathleen, Jim, Peter, Mary Evelyn all have a problem with me as I do not want anything to do with any of them.

Yes, I joined RealScam.com and will continue to fight illegal programs and schemes to rob innocent people of their money. You might want to read this:

http://www.realscam.com/f16/julian-w...adlandpro-955/

I am still having a hard time trying to take this in. I realize that you have to do what you have to do but I hope you will try to get a better understanding before you turn against ‘friends’. My friendship is not to be taken lightly and I would have thought the same of you.

God bless,
Sara

Now can anyone see how she determined that from this letter??

1106


3539
Winnipeg

RE: Why this site is being slandered and harassed for about a year12/2/2011 8:45:44 PM
Hello Everybody,

Thank you to all who have expressed their opinions to that moment.

I'm forced to close this thread because it turns out that everybody who has posted in here, his/her response has been copied on realscam site and discussed by two former members of this site and owner of realscam.

I don't want any harm to happen to well meaning members of this site and be the target of cyber bullying and cyber stalking after expressing their opinions which are consistent with mine.

Unfortunately cyber stalkers are here and they will badmouth and implicate you should you engage in this conversation.

I will reopen this thread in the future to post newest developments in that matter.

If you are still interested in this topic, you can visit this page where you don't have to use your full name and still be able to express your opinion without fear of being cyber-bullied.

REALSCAM.COM may live up to it's name? - REALTRUTH.ORG

Bogdan Fiedur

You don't need to be a victim of the corrupted government
Truth can only be found by those who have the humility to consider what they do not prefer.

So why not just start a website where we can just have it out Bogdan - from both sides. You allow the same to take place there where others cannot defend themselves (as if they really need to)?

Anopther couple of bar room lawyers have now joined in the Bogmeister fan-fest on his Real Truth blog

The first, who calls herself Kalina Jordan, claims she takes class with Jake - she doesnt say where or in what and judging from her chum's reply, it could be difficult as he clearly doesn't exist.

and then the next bunch comment as follows

Stevie Y
04:20 PM on December 02, 2011

blt20x says...
Wallace says that the owner of RealScam is anonymous and never posts. A poster there publicly stated on another site that the owner is soapboxmom, Heather Dobrott, suppposedly from Garland Texas. Why would a longterm poster make that statement on another site if not true? Heather Dobrott has never denied being the owner when people on other sites have written directly in front of her that she's the owner. No denial. Verification then.



If this is true she is really put herself in a very poor legal position. She posts she does not know the owner on her own website, she is obviously wearing two different hats which is subject to countless new state cyberstalking laws as well she may be the procurer of what can be legally defined as a hate site. Thanks "Jake" for giving me the down low on this!

Or, in the words of the late Sir Walter Scott

Oh! what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!

Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:14:43 -0600
Subject: No Longer Involved in this fight
From: kalcalstudent@gmail.com
To: soapboxmom@hotmail.com

Hello Adminsitrator,

I am writing to you with no claims or preferences. I am not sure if you are the owner of the site or not but you do write in one of your threads:
"The owner chose to remain anonymous from day one. That individual invited me on as the first admin as that person felt my voice exposing scammers needed to be heard. Scam.com removed posts due to fake lawyers letters and incentives. We vowed to run a site that was open, honest, fair and well moderated. There is no monkey business behind the scenes here ever. Legal precedent indicates the site owner has no liability for what is posted. The author of the posts is legally liable for them. We choose to keep the board well moderated and will remove posts that have provably false factual information that can be refuted with verifiable facts. So, I will handle any legitimate complaints appropriately. I have worked with numerous enforcement agencies and would of course abide by any court order."

The bold highlight above is in fact not a true statement (see below).

I will not be writing to you again as I am in my fourth year of law, but a classmate brought this to our attention. If you have any control over this site I would kindly advsie your members that they can state facts or opinions but there must be basis. Most of your members posting have gone beyond what is legally termed as defamation in every state of the union as well as most common law countries. Again I have no interest in hearing either side's statement. The site owner of Adland is a medium and not subject to the same laws as it's covered under the some FCC rules and broadcast and journalistic ethics. Your members can state something as opine however there must be a protective clause somewhere on your site stating that you do not endorse or share the opinion of the writer. You must also show some compliance that questionable attacks are removed. I am sure your site has good intentions and started out with but some of your members are too radical for your site to ever be taken seriously if you do not have control. Again I have no further interest in speaking with you, nor following this further. Some of my classmates may be interested what you have to say and I will gladly forward you there names if you have interest in it.

Your Arguement to Leagal Precedent (Although you do not state what that precedent is?)

Publication, broadcast or wide dissemination of defamatory material (Wide dissemination falls under libel; slander is neighborhood gossip). Defamation, defined as untrue words that tend to harm a person's reputation or expose them to hatred, contempt or ridicule. Defamation means that a statement actually harms the reputation of another person. Fault on the part of the publisher or broadcaster, such as negligence or malice. It can't merely be false or feigned unawareness, as the court said in Gertz v. Welch.
Damages - The plaintiff only has to prove they were damaged, either directly (loss of income) or indirectly (proveable pain and suffering). A court may also impose puntive (punishment) damages on a defendant found guilty of defamation. In other tort areas, such as copyright infringement, there may be statutory damages that are specifically set out in a law (statute).

Even though the identity of the site, who's owner is not revealed the website owner would still have to establish that they made and took precautions. Ensure that they are in fact not covered under the same protections as a medium broadcaster as there are no services offered, the RealScam site in question is not a public service and is not protected as a Public Broadcaster it would therefore be listed as private and would also have to prove the they not knowingly allowed this, as they would require someone by proxy to manage the site. RIFTS v. Lenyoun.

Your site could be something to be proud of one day if you can get control of some of the potentially criminal posts made by some.

Sincerely,

Kaitlyn J.

Law study in the U.S. is a 3 year program. There are no fourth year students you moron! UCLA is no exception. Bogdan has a bunch of liars and scammers pimping for him. I will be forwarding all this to his legal counsel!

And since you are such a legal genius, why don't you research the legality of the many "opportunities" advertised on Bogdan's site. Some have been the subject of enforcement action. Many more things advertised fit the criteria of being possibly illegal in various jurisdictions. I suggest you do some research on that!!! And, do try that court case again and cite it properly brainiac!

The anonymous owner placed this on every page:
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on this website are solely those of their respective authors.

First-Year Schedule

Advanced Schedule
Advanced Schedule

In the second and third years, UCLA Law students may choose from a wide array of law and law-related courses, in addition to a mandatory course in Professional Responsibility and an upper-division writing requirement.





Soapboxmom

Bogdan 1106 3539 Winnipeg

RE: Why this site is being slandered and harassed for about a year 12/2/2011 8:53:54 PM

More from REALSCAM.COM may live up to it's name? - REALTRUTH.ORG Jake Simmons says... Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. The law and act states the burden of proof falls on the individual making the claims and the burden of proof is very high. Just to add in some statements of fact that Jake did not elaborate on (I am in some of the classes with Jake and some of us have taken an interest in this). "Burden of Proof" "maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" translated is "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." It is an important note that in a Defamation suit it is the repsonsibility of the Plaintiff to establish (not prove) that what said was defamatory, the Plaintiff does not have to prove otherwise, the burden of proof would lie with the defendant who made the allegations and set forth with actual evidence to prove the statements as truth. Publication, broadcast or wide dissemination of defamatory material (Wide dissemination falls under libel; slander is neighborhood gossip). Defamation, defined as untrue words that tend to harm a person's reputation or expose them to hatred, contempt or ridicule. Defamation means that a statement actually harms the reputation of another person, rather than being merely insulting or offensive. Fault on the part of the publisher or broadcaster, such as negligence or malice. It can't merely be false, as the court said in Gertz v. Welch. Damages - The plaintiff has to prove they were damaged, either directly (loss of income) or indirectly (proveable pain and suffering). A court may also impose puntive (punishment) damages on a defendant found guilty of defamation. In other tort areas, such as copyright infringement, there may be statutory damages that are specifically set out in a law (statute). Even though the identity of the site, who's owner is not revealed the website owner would still have to establish that they made and took precautions. Ensure that they are in fact not covered under the same protections as a medium broadcaster as there are no services offered, the RealScam site in question is not a public service and is not protected as a Public Broadcaster it would therefore be listed as private and would also have to prove the they not knowingly allowed this, as they would require someone by proxy to manage the site. RIFTS v. Lenyoun.

Again Bogdan is quoting idiots and has not verified any of this with his high dollar legal counsel. The last case listed is not properly cited and the Gertz v. Welch case is from 1974

Defamation and the First Amendment

Here is the current law: 47 USC 230. In relevant part, it reads: "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." In other words, the "scam site owner" is not liable for what others post. Moreover, since this is a federal statute, it preempts any state law to the contrary.

Give up the legal debates, Boggy. You are continuing to commit business suicide.

Soapboxmom

It actually looks like Bogged HAS given up the legal debates...he has closed down the discussion thread.Probably a good thing because the legal help he is getting so far is just helping to dig the hole deeper...! Notice how conveniently they keep sidestepping probable legal f aux pas by he and his entourage...? LRM has it right, knock off the huffing and puffing and get it filed so the discovery motions can get started...!

Bogdan F 06:44 PM on December 02, 2011
Let me introduce myself first.

My name is Bogdan Fiedur. I'm the owner of the website which case is being discussed
here Free Classifieds, Advertising And Promotion @ Adlandpro.
First I would like to thank the person who started this site who did excellent job
in defining some of the groundwork in very professional and expert manner.

Thank you again.

I'm really excited that this place attracted ambitious students of the subject
on research in advertising media ethics.

This is more than I could wish for. After a year of being continually described as the
culprit and being at loss what to do with continuing defamation and harassment,
it is refreshing to see some light in the tunnel.

Here is the question to some of you more versed in the legal jumbo
of this situation.

I just have visited the site realscam.com and found this post made
by one of the users there who makes this triumphant post on their site
enjoying that my name is found for sites and pages they have created
themselves which discredits me and my business in negative way.

Would this kind of post be considered and be sufficient as an intent to cause harm
or defamation of another person or business in case of legal proceedings?



Shame they deleted your post on Adland SBM, but just in case anyone missed it, here is the Google result for Bogdan Fiedur 10 minutes ago

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=13&...w=1475&bih=763

And todays winner is ...... Adlandpro & Bogdan Fiedur. Scam & ponzi advertising service. by our very own Path2Prosperty !!!!!

2nd place goes to AdlandPro
3rd place goes to Linked In

Runners Up
4th place EDITORIAL: Bogdan Fiedur Of AdLandPro?s Deplorable Bid To Chill RealScam.com In The Age Of International Mass-Marketing Fraud Patrick Pretty the man with the best consumer advocate reporting blog on the internet

5th place Bogdan Fiedur of Adlandpro Threatening Suit Against Realscam.com The one and only Real Scam

6th place You Tube (polish version)

7th place Quatloos! • View topic - Bogdan Fiedur of Adlandpro Threatens Realscam.com Those great guys from Quatloos

Congratulations guys and Bodgan Fiedur, remember one thing ...... YOU started it. lol



Also another member posts.



Miss "Butter won't melt in her mouth" brought it back LORM.

WELL DONE!! LORM!!

Good idea to see if Google can pick up more...



Regards


Bogdan Fiedur



Members Area

Sign In or Register


Recent Blog Entries

REALSCAM.COM may live up to it's name?
by littleroundsoapboxmom | 18 comments



Newest Members

Now Bogdan is melting down because several people are posting Google search results. If he hadn't started this fight with his slam site, legal threats and meltdowns then no one would have responded. Perhaps his bar fly fake law students would like to comment on this:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-02-24-Dobrott's Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf

Please pay particular attention to pages 10-13 and let's discuss Bogdan's participation and actual commencing of this public war. His slam site and posts on Scamlandpro available to 172,000 members and the general public will be an issue you legal eagles should address. I think I will call Boggy Bottom Feeder from now on. It certainly fits!!!

Oh, and Bottom Feeder. That silly site you posted on doesn't Google up well at all, so I am fairly certain those anonymous posters are all working with you. I will ask your counsel about that. I am sure he is anxious to talk to these geniuses.

Soapboxmom

Originally Posted by Soapboxmom

Law study in the U.S. is a 3 year program. There are no fourth year students you moron! UCLA is no exception. Bogdan has a bunch of liars and scammers pimping for him. I will be forwarding all this to his legal counsel!

Soapboxmom

Hi Mom,

Could take 3 weeks from, some "law schools"

I wonder how long it takes to graduate as a lawyer from Bernier's Kahn Academy. Perhaps Bogdan's legal counsel would like to comment on degrees from "Bernier Academy."

Originally Posted by laidback

It actually looks like Bogged HAS given up the legal debates...he has closed down the discussion thread.Probably a good thing because the legal help he is getting so far is just helping to dig the hole deeper...! Notice how conveniently they keep sidestepping probable legal f aux pas by he and his entourage...? LRM has it right, knock off the huffing and puffing and get it filed so the discovery motions can get started...!

Yeah. It's pretty hilarious that all these alleged 'lawyers' are on his side yet he simply can't just take it to court since he's convinced himself he is right.

Originally Posted by Lil Ol' Radical Me

Shame they deleted your post on Adland SBM, but just in case anyone missed it, here is the Google result for Bogdan Fiedur 10 minutes ago

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=13&...w=1475&bih=763

And todays winner is ...... Adlandpro & Bogdan Fiedur. Scam & ponzi advertising service. by our very own Path2Prosperty !!!!!

2nd place goes to AdlandPro
3rd place goes to Linked In

Runners Up
4th place EDITORIAL: Bogdan Fiedur Of AdLandPro’s Deplorable Bid To Chill RealScam.com In The Age Of International Mass-Marketing Fraud Patrick Pretty the man with the best consumer advocate reporting blog on the internet

5th place http://www.realscam.com/f11/bogdan-f...lscam-com-913/ The one and only Real Scam

6th place You Tube (polish version)

7th place Quatloos! • View topic - Bogdan Fiedur of Adlandpro Threatens Realscam.com Those great guys from Quatloos

Congratulations guys and Bodgan Fiedur, remember one thing ...... YOU started it. lol

Interesting LRM. You have suggested that I am getting well known.

What happens when Boggy's counsel has to determine "How Important" is this Bottomfeeder's good name and how far has the libel spread. He will have to consider the circulation of this thread, won't he?. WOW. I could actually win the case. Wouldn't that be great? As I will accept damages in cat food and menthol tipped cigarettes, it might get into a lot of newspapers.

If Lynne had not been on SKYPE when I opened the letter by the computer, I would have torn it up or done what I did, (when I received a similar threat), which was to turn on the hotplate in my kitchen and use it to light a cigarette. Not a good idea but if you loose as many lighters as I do, it is a once in a while "sluttish binge" for me.

Reply Jake Simmons 07:50 PM on December 02, 2011

[Bogdan F]
Let me introduce myself first.

My name is Bogdan Fiedur. I'm the owner of the website which case is being discussed
here Free Classifieds, Advertising And Promotion @ Adlandpro. [Bogdan F]

Hello Bogdan,

As a law student I cannot advise you on what recourse to take, we came across this through some idle research and found this article which a lot of us have expanded on through other links. Personally, if someone was doing this to me I would send out a cease and desist order directly to the owner of the website (whom appears to be wearing to hats) in which I would assume judging by the personalities would be admonished, but I know I would have had to send them a notification of this first. I would then begin a calculation of what my incidental and consequential losses are, this is the total costs of what it costs me to get them to stop, in the United States you cannot recover legal costs from the defendant. I would also have a forensic accountant put together what your quantifiable losses are or can be, this is the overall loss of potential income. In most cases a forensic accountant report is usually enough for most judges unless the costs are exceedingly high the judge may request the accountant to testify. I could also seek punitive damages that although it will not be awarded as a monetary but rather to have the indidual legally stopped from using the same recourse or method so I would have them legally stopped from using the internet. If the amount of my loss was under $ the value of limits set in small calims I would seek to file small claims in her jurisdiction. Once a monetary value is secured and if awarded would give me recourse to continuously file until they ceased.

Our opinion is that these are maybe 6 or 7 individuals, who are so sadly misdirected there comments do not warrant much attention as it only takes a person with common sense to realize that the statements made by these individuals who do not reveal their identities and are really only stating what they deem to be important to themselves.

I would send a cease and desist letter and notify my lawyer to begin proceedings against the site even if small claims, this would also expose the owner who, if in fact is one of the members posting and has claimed as anonymous has also exposed that they have lied and therefore diminishes their credibility in the eyes of the law, if it is registered in a spouse or common law partner's name is irrelevant as if the website was created at anytime in the marriage would be considered community property and there for would make both owner's of the site. Again exposing their credibility.

I don't want to go to far into details with you as I am limited to what I can state as a student but I can assure you myself and a few of my fellow students (a student dream team) are putting together a documentation through investigation to expose what they really are. Not through hearsay or innuendo but with any public records we can locate. I believe we have agreed to create a new site as we are not sure who runs this blog, however if we open a new site we will be sure to post it here.




Members Area

Sign In or Register


Recent Blog Entries

REALSCAM.COM may live up to it's name?
by littleroundsoapboxmom | 19 comments



Newest Members

Again it seems the bartender doesn't have any legal background.

Small Claims Courts: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law

Background

Small claims courts are intended to resolve civil disputes involving small amounts of money, without formal rules of EVIDENCE and long delays. The parties involved may present their own claims or defenses or may be represented by COUNSEL; however, in a handful of states, attorneys are prohibited. The cases move quickly through the court dockets, the judges often render their opinions in the same day, and the parties are generally satisfied with the quick resolution of the controversy. However, there is a downside. All small claims courts have "limited jurisdiction" (authority to hear and adjudge a matter) involving not only the dollar amount but also the subject matter of the controversy. Secondly, if parties do not understand what they are doing in presenting their claim or defense, they could stand to lose, badly, and there is no going back.
Anatomy of a Small Claim Action

Resolving a dispute in small claims court is very much like conducting a mini-trial, although generally less formal. There is a claim and a defense, the presentation of evidence, and a judgment. Rules of procedure vary from state to state, but the overall process is remarkably similar.

Maximum Dollar Value of Case

The maximum dollar value of the dispute or claim varies greatly from state to state. Typically, the maximum amount plaintiffs may be awarded in a judgment ranges from $3,000 in New York to $7,500 in Minnesota. If the amount they are asking for in damages is more than the allowable amount in their state's small claims court system, they have two choices: either to either waive their right to any amount above and beyond the maximum allowable, or file their case in the next level of court.

Nature of Dispute or Controversy

Small claims courts are mostly intended to resolve minor monetary disputes. A limited number of state small claims courts permit other forms of remedy besides money, for example, evictions or requests for the return of PERSONAL PROPERTY. However, individuals generally cannot use small claims courts to file for DIVORCE, guardianship, BANKRUPTCY, name changes, CHILD CUSTODY, or "injunctive relief" (emergency relief, usually to stop someone from doing something). In many states, they cannot sue for DEFAMATION (slander or libel) or FALSE ARREST in small claims court. Finally, they cannot sue the federal government or any of its branches, agencies, or employees in their official capacities in small claims court.

Time Limitations

Each state has its own rules regarding how long individuals have to file suit, once they have been harmed or an event occurs that gives rise to a claim. The same time limits ("statutes of limitation") apply to small claims courts as to other courts. Generally, they have at least one year from the injury or event (or its DISCOVERY, in some cases) to file their suit.

Procedure

To start the process, individuals should check with their local court clerk to find out where their small claims complaint should be filed: most states require that they file suit in a small claims court in the county wherein which the party being sued actually resides (or has business headquarters), rather than the one in which the plaintiff resides.

Libel and defamation cases are almost universally barred from small claims courts, you bloomin' idiots. No one with even a cursory understanding of U.S. law would have recommended that. It is apparently dream team of folks smokin something that is clearly causing hallucinations.

Punitive damages in small claims? Are you kidding me??? One sure as hell can collect legal fees from a defendant, moron. If a Plaintiff has a legitimate case and wins they sure as hell can recover their costs of court from the defendant. The defendant under rules for sanctions or SLAPP protection etc. can recover their costs for frivolous, harassment and / or groundless filings. Bogdan better ring up his $500.00 an hour attorney quick. I can almost guarantee that his advice would include .

Soapboxmom

Blog Owner 08:06 PM on December 02, 2011
This is great and more than I could dream of, I wrote this blog because I got screwed in a purchase deal by one of the members on Real Scam and was then ignored. I tried to contact this real scam and was ignored. If they can have member's that have scammed people in the past and that they are aware of them could they be liable for anything like letting the member hide behind this joke of a website to make themself look credible? I mean if they are who they say they are they would investigate their members wouldn't they? If you need additional information you can reach me at littleroundsoapboxmom@gmail.com

I hope when this bunch has sobered up and the hangover is gone they will stand behind these inane postings of pure drivel. This site doesn't generate a dime and there is no advertising here at this time. Bottomfeeder is the one seeing $$$$$$. I investigate whatever catches my interest as a non-paying hobby. What a moron!!!


Soapbxmom

Learn About our Students

UCLA School of Law is proud to have some of the nation's most diverse, intelligent and promising students of law. As an institution, we are committed to making a world-class legal education available to men and women, regardless of their background. This commitment to access is part of the public mission we embrace that makes our school so distinctive.

There are approximately 950 J.D. students enrolled across all three years of study. Each August, about 300 women and men enter our community as first-year students, approximately 35 enter our second-year class as transfer students and approximately 15 enter our master of laws program. All degree programs at UCLA School of Law are offered on a full-time basis only. The academic year, comprising two semesters, extends from mid-August through mid-May. There are no evening or summer study programs available.

UCLA School of Law also boasts over 40 student-run organizations and over 13 student-run journals, on a variety of topics that affect today's world.

In order to improve access to students from all walks of life, we are proud of our Law Fellows Outreach Program, which reaches out to high-potential high school and college students with strong academic backgrounds who have had limited exposure to collegiate education and helps them understand what they need to do to succeed at top national law schools.

We also have a number of opportunities for our students to get involved with the school and the campus beyond.

Class Profile
Student Organizations
Student Journals

Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:14:43 -0600
Subject: No Longer Involved in this fight
From: kalcalstudent@gmail.com
To: soapboxmom@hotmail.com

Hello Adminsitrator,

......I am in my fourth year of law, but a classmate brought this to our attention.......

The lying goon patrol cheering Bogdan on is really blowing it. No doubt I will get a lot of discovery on that!

Soapboxmom

Geez,

they keep on going on and on about all the "woulda, shoulda, couldas" they can dream up in their tiny minds and ignoring the pertinent question:

"WHAT IF THE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE"

I would suggest our bright eyed and bushy tailed young "students" would better spend their time researching the legality or otherwise of the programs advertised on Adland.

If, after doing so, they then decide legal action is the best course to follow, they should perhaps consult Mr Fiedur and ask whether or not he or his legal representatives feel like standing up in open court and fighting the good fight on behalf of EZWealthSolution or make-a-squillion-sitting-on-yer-ass.com

Hopefully somebody British who is not associated with Howard Kennedy or RS would find a way of warning British members of Adlandpro that they should check the affilliate urls for legimacy with Advertising Standard's Authority. I have not seen this BRITISH member hawking his wares before. I am banned.

Stevie Y09:05 PM on December 02, 2011

They are on to us!! That Jesus lady is just to quick I suggest we give up now. Did you see the poison she spouts now:

"Law study in the U.S. is a 3 year program. There are no fourth year students you moron! UCLA is no exception."

She is referring to Special K. who is in fact in her 4th year as she completed 4 years of college degree and what should be 3 years of law school with the exception of an exemption from part of year two allowing her to come back and carry on.

Sadly this woman is so demented she is so obviously prone to revealing her Google Law degree that she has posted this:

Here is the current law: 47 USC 230. In relevant part, it reads: "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." In other words, the "scam site owner" is not liable for what others post. Moreover, since this is a federal statute, it preempts any state law to the contrary.

Again she does not understand that you must read your Google search Law facts!

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker" applies to the indidual not the Publishing broadcaster.

Barrett vs. Rosenthal

In sum, the holding of the Court is as follows:
In California the accrual of causes of action growing out of the publication of defamatory or other tortious statements is governed by the single-publication rule. Under the rule one cause of action will arise, and the statute of limitations will commence running, upon the first general publication or broadcast of a tortious statement, notwithstanding how many copies of the publication are distributed or how many people hear or see the broadcast. Any subsequent republication or rebroadcast gives rise to a new single cause of action.

In Conclusion
All users of the Internet should examine the manner in which they interact online. Consult with an attorney with experience in these matters. And consult as well with your liability insurance to see if you are covered for these kinds of activities.

A publisher that sets a terms of use, that is in fact violated by any user of an interactive computer service when then be held accountable.

Again the Jesus Lady does not read all of her Google Search Law materials, she scans, copies and pastes. By every legl definition Jesus lady you and your members are breaking the law, I know the staute of limitations here in Cal are one year to file and if you want to take us on let's do it.

The soup for brains bunch is still at it! I quoted a licensed attorney who is a partner is a very successful law firm just to see if you would pounce on it. Again, brainiacs read this again and tell us some more about small claims!

The University of South Carolina admonishes its students:

Ethical Issues

1. Unauthorized Practice of Law
   
   As a law student you may be viewed by non-lawyers as possessing legal knowledge and skills and there is no doubt that you will be asked for legal advice or assistance from family, friends and even strangers. It is unethical, and may even be illegal for you to offer legal advice, assistance, document drafting, any appearance of representation or in any way appear to be giving a legal opinion to a person or entity until you are fully licensed in that jurisdiction. If someone were to rely on your advice you could cause serious harm. A disclaimer that you are “just a law student” is not sufficient. Not only could you be subject to civil or criminal penalties, but you could jeopardize your admission to the Bar.

University of Chicago Law School states:

Q: May students take on legal research or matters on their own, or respond to requests from the general public?
A: No. Students may not engage in legal work on their own; this would be an unauthorized practice of law. Students cannot accept cases from the public and cannot give legal advice and assistance without the supervision of a licensed attorney.

I am sure UCLA and the California bar will have questions about your online legal services!

Soapboxmom

They seem to be having a high old time over at "realtruth", that obvious knockoff of a church site. They are thumping themselves on the back about the so-called violations here, but I have yet to see any of them question Boggy about his actions. Interesting that they think that Realscam is culpable for the posts but Adland is NOT??? With boggy and these unlicensed lawyers, anonymity is supposedly soooo unacceptable, would they like to give us their real names so UCLA can be informed of their activities??? UCLA is just up the way from my summer house, btw.

California State Bar says:

If you have information about the possible unlawful practice of law by an unlicensed individual, please call 1-800-843-9053. You should send supporting documents or other information to: The State Bar of California, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, Intake Unit, 1149 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299, Attn: UPL Project...

Register with the State Bar within 90 days of beginning your law studies.

Excellent, let's have those California bar numbers for all you incredibly verbose soon to be lawyers!

Bogdan F08:25 PM on December 02, 2011

Thank you Jake,

It is appreciated.

Regarding your new website. This is very interesting development.
I'm now in the process of hiring an investigative journalist which will be working with me on creating an article about this group. Can I put her in contact with you to verify some of the findings. If yes please email me at bogdan@softfornet.com

A real investigative journalist will go where the facts lead them. This could be beyond hilarious! I would be happy to be interviewed and cooperate. Think how much more dirt this investigator could dig up that we volunteers don't have the time to research. Go for it Bogdan!!!

Soapboxmom