http://www.seobook.com/archives/001503.shtml
Quote:
Your help is needed in the Traffic Power case...
I was looking for the latest updates to my case, and while I was looking through the court cases in the United States District Court, District of Nevada I log into the Pacer Service and saw that the TrafficPowerSucks.com case has recently been updated.
I still have not had any specifics handed my way, but it would probably be fair to assume that the Traffic Power strategy is going to be fairly similar with how they handle my case and the case of TrafficPowerSucks.com.
If you log in to pacer you will see that on 01/25/2006 Traffic Power's new lawyer Mark S. Dzarnoski added document #17 to the Traffic Power Sucks case, a Docket Text Amended Complaint. As far as I am aware this is the first point in time Traffic Power has offered anyone they have threatened or sued any specifics as to the reasons behind the threats or lawsuit.
These claims are not against me, but are against another webmaster being sued by the same company that is suing me. I don't want conjecture or noise comments like "I think xzy are ..." but if you can help the webmaster of TrafficPowerSucks.com gather evidence about any truth to these alleged defamatory conditions it would help both of us greatly.
Some of them may be easy to refute while others will likely be harder.
Keep in mind that some clients who hired Traffic-Power.com may not be internet savvy and probably do not read my website, so if we can spread this message far and wide we will have a better chance of many people seeing this and hopefully helping to get this situation resolved for everyone.
In document #17 of 2:05-cv-01094-RCJ-LRL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT OF NEVADA v. DAVID BAARDSEN, et al. under the defamation cause of action Traffic Power's new lawyer asserted the following:
The false and defamatory information includes but is not limited to the following:
a. Claims that the search engine giant Google has banned and is banning from its search engine listings websites of Traffic-Power.com clients because of the search engine optimization strategies used by Plaintiff.
b. Claims that clients of Traffic-Power.com run the risk of being banned from Google search engine listings if they use Traffic-Power.com services;
c. Claims that Traffic-Power.com plagiarizes its web page optimization work;
d. Claims that Plaintiff has started several new businesses under different names to hide its identity;
e. Claims that two new businesses started by Plaintiff are under investigation by several agencies;
f. Claims that and/or innuendo that Plaintiff is engaged in extortion of its clients because of the techniques used by Plaintiff in optimizing search engine listings;
g. Claims that Plaintiff's business constitutes a scam and that clients of Plaintiff are "victims;"
h. Claims that Plaintiff stole from defendants;
i. Claims that the business practices of Plaintiff constituted some kind of actionable violation of the rights of its clients and that the filing of a class action lawsuit against Plaintiff by its clients was imminent; and
j. Claims that Plaintiff formed and operates fake Internet forums on search engine optimization to promote its services.
Time is of the essence. If you have any evidence that would prove any of these claims factual please step forward.
|
If anybody has information or knows of Traffic Power clients that were burned, please do step forward.
Linear Mode
