There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 E-FILED 2014 AUG 06 10:38 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,
APPLICATION FOR A CIVIL
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN
HARASSMENT OR INTIMIDATION OF
VICTIMS OR WITNESSES (IOWA
CODE § 915.22)
v.
XCENTRIC VENTURES LLC. (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 civil injunction to restrain the harassment and
intimidation of witnesses to a criminal case:
1.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to enter a civil injunction to
restrain the harassment and intimidation of witnesses to a criminal case when a
preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that harassment or intimidation of an
identified victim or witnesses in a criminal case exists or that the order is necessary
to prevent and restrain an offense under Iowa Code Chapter 915, which is
commonly referred to as the “Victim Protection Act.” IOWA CODE § 915.22(2) (2014)
2.
Defendant
Xcentric
Ventures
is
an
Arizona-based
company
(dba
www.ripoffreport.com), which is incorporated in the State of Arizona. The
www.ripoffreport.com (“Ripoff Report”) is a purported consumer advocacy website
that allows people to publish / post free complaints on its website about any
experience (good or bad) that a person has had with any business or any individual.
3.
It is believed that Xcentric Ventures / RipOff Report grosses around 15
million dollars a year, mostly through advertising revenue, and is worth
approximately 45 million dollars.
4.
Iowa has jurisdiction over Defendant for the following reasons:
a. Defendant’s purposeful, internet-based conduct, which is
described below, constitutes an attempt or conspiracy to commit an
offense within the State of Iowa;
b. Defendant intended for its below-described conduct to produce
detrimental effects within Iowa, and said conduct did produce
detrimental effects within Iowa;
1 Page 2 E-FILED 2014 AUG 06 10:38 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
c. Defendant’s below-described conduct and connection with
Iowa are such that Defendant should have reasonably anticipated
being haled into an Iowa courtroom; and
d. The injury giving rise to this action occurred within or had some
connection to Iowa, meaning that Defendant purposely directed its
activities at Iowa and this action arose out of or relates to those
activities.
5.
Defendant, through its owner(s), agents, representatives, and employees
(collectively, “Defendant”), since September 2012, has been publishing defamatory,
harassing “complaints” on its website, about the State’s witnesses in State v.
Richter, Sac County District Court Case No. FECR011900.
6.
Defendant’s “complaints” falsely and maliciously accuse the State’s
witnesses of child molestation, having sexually transmitted diseases, fraudulent
activities, sexual abuse, perjury, drug abuse, and murder.
7.
Defendant’s “complaints” also target the friends, family, and associates
(collectively, “secondary victims”) of the State’s witnesses in a similar manner, as
well as the businesses, employers, and other pecuniary interests of the State’s
witnesses and the secondary victims.
8.
Defendant knew or should have known that the defamatory content
contained in these complaints was false at the time they published them and / or
continued to publish them after learning they were false.
9.
Defendant published one of its complaints about the State’s witnesses on
every one of its approximate 1.8 million webpages.
10. Defendant optimizes and engineers its complaints so that they appear at
the top of the first page of Google and other search engine results, above or in lieu
of legitimate search results for legitimate (non-defamatory) websites belonging to, or
about the State’s witnesses and the ancillary victims.
11. Defendant has boasted that its website is sometimes viewed around 2
million times per day.
12. Defendant’s publication of these “complaints” was done without any
legitimate purpose, with the intent to intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm the State’s
2 Page 3 E-FILED 2014 AUG 06 10:38 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
witnesses, and in a manner likely to cause the State’s witnesses annoyance or
harm. [Harassment, IOWA CODE § 708.7 (2014)]
13. Defendant has published these complaints for the purpose of harassing and
intimidating the State’s witnesses, in retaliation for their testimony or lawful
participation in State’s investigation and prosecution in State v. Richter. [Witness
Tampering, IOWA CODE § 720.4 (2014)]
14. Defendant has published these false, defamatory complaints with the intent
that they be used in Tracey Richter’s Post Conviction Relief Proceedings (Tracey
Richter v. State of Iowa,
Sac County District Court Case No. PCCV01955)
[Obstructing Prosecution, IOWA CODE § 719.3 (2014)]
15. The family and friends of convicted murderer Tracey Richter, the defendant
in State v. Richter, have aided Defendant in its creation and publication of these
defamatory complaints about the State’s witnesses.
16. Defendant has published these complaints about the State’s witnesses for
financial gain.
17. Defendant has offered to investigate the veracity of these complaints (the
same complaints Defendant authored and published), and remove and / or redact
certain content from said complaints if the witnesses each pay RipOff Report $2,000
and present RipOff Report with evidence that proves the complaints RipOff Report
published about them are false. [Extortion, IOWA CODE § 711.4 (2014)]
18. Defendant extorted one of the State’s witnesses by offering to remove the
complaints it published about the witness for $10,000. [Extortion, IOWA CODE § 711.4
(2014)]
19. Defendant’s publication of these complaints have caused significant
financial and emotional harms to the State’s witnesses.
20. The State’s witnesses have stated they would not have cooperated with law
enforcement or testified in State v. Richter had they known their personal and
professional lives would be targeted, damaged, and / or destroyed such that they
have been by Defendant.
WHEREFORE, the State of Iowa respectfully requests that the Court, following a
hearing on the merits of the State’s application, issue a permanent injunction
ordering Defendant to remove the names and images of the State’s witnesses and
3 Page 4 E-FILED 2014 AUG 06 10:38 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
the secondary victims (NOT to include the removal of the undersigned’s name or
image), from its “complaints” that are related in any way to State v. Richter, and
enjoin Defendant from re-publishing the same, and order such other reliefs equitable
and just in the premises.
____________________________
Benjamin John Smith
Sac County Attorney
Sac County Courthouse
100 NW State St., Suite 9
Sac City IA 50583
Telephone: 712-662-4791
Facsimile: 712-662-4123
Email: attorney@saccounty.org
4
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
E-FILED 2014 AUG 06 10:38 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,
APPLICATION FOR A CIVIL
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN
HARASSMENT OR INTIMIDATION OF
VICTIMS OR WITNESSES (IOWA
CODE § 915.22)
v.
XCENTRIC VENTURES LLC. (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 civil injunction to restrain the harassment and
intimidation of witnesses to a criminal case:
1.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to enter a civil injunction to
restrain the harassment and intimidation of witnesses to a criminal case when a
preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that harassment or intimidation of an
identified victim or witnesses in a criminal case exists or that the order is necessary
to prevent and restrain an offense under Iowa Code Chapter 915, which is
commonly referred to as the “Victim Protection Act.” IOWA CODE § 915.22(2) (2014)
2.
Defendant
Xcentric
Ventures
is
an
Arizona-based
company
(dba
www.ripoffreport.com), which is incorporated in the State of Arizona. The
www.ripoffreport.com (“Ripoff Report”) is a purported consumer advocacy website
that allows people to publish / post free complaints on its website about any
experience (good or bad) that a person has had with any business or any individual.
3.
It is believed that Xcentric Ventures / RipOff Report grosses around 15
million dollars a year, mostly through advertising revenue, and is worth
approximately 45 million dollars.
4.
Iowa has jurisdiction over Defendant for the following reasons:
a. Defendant’s purposeful, internet-based conduct, which is
described below, constitutes an attempt or conspiracy to commit an
offense within the State of Iowa;
b. Defendant intended for its below-described conduct to produce
detrimental effects within Iowa, and said conduct did produce
detrimental effects within Iowa;
1
PDF Page 3
E-FILED 2014 AUG 06 10:38 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
c. Defendant’s below-described conduct and connection with
Iowa are such that Defendant should have reasonably anticipated
being haled into an Iowa courtroom; and
d. The injury giving rise to this action occurred within or had some
connection to Iowa, meaning that Defendant purposely directed its
activities at Iowa and this action arose out of or relates to those
activities.
5.
Defendant, through its owner(s), agents, representatives, and employees
(collectively, “Defendant”), since September 2012, has been publishing defamatory,
harassing “complaints” on its website, about the State’s witnesses in State v.
Richter, Sac County District Court Case No. FECR011900.
6.
Defendant’s “complaints” falsely and maliciously accuse the State’s
witnesses of child molestation, having sexually transmitted diseases, fraudulent
activities, sexual abuse, perjury, drug abuse, and murder.
7.
Defendant’s “complaints” also target the friends, family, and associates
(collectively, “secondary victims”) of the State’s witnesses in a similar manner, as
well as the businesses, employers, and other pecuniary interests of the State’s
witnesses and the secondary victims.
8.
Defendant knew or should have known that the defamatory content
contained in these complaints was false at the time they published them and / or
continued to publish them after learning they were false.
9.
Defendant published one of its complaints about the State’s witnesses on
every one of its approximate 1.8 million webpages.
10. Defendant optimizes and engineers its complaints so that they appear at
the top of the first page of Google and other search engine results, above or in lieu
of legitimate search results for legitimate (non-defamatory) websites belonging to, or
about the State’s witnesses and the ancillary victims.
11. Defendant has boasted that its website is sometimes viewed around 2
million times per day.
12. Defendant’s publication of these “complaints” was done without any
legitimate purpose, with the intent to intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm the State’s
2
PDF Page 4
E-FILED 2014 AUG 06 10:38 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
witnesses, and in a manner likely to cause the State’s witnesses annoyance or
harm. [Harassment, IOWA CODE § 708.7 (2014)]
13. Defendant has published these complaints for the purpose of harassing and
intimidating the State’s witnesses, in retaliation for their testimony or lawful
participation in State’s investigation and prosecution in State v. Richter. [Witness
Tampering, IOWA CODE § 720.4 (2014)]
14. Defendant has published these false, defamatory complaints with the intent
that they be used in Tracey Richter’s Post Conviction Relief Proceedings (Tracey
Richter v. State of Iowa,
Sac County District Court Case No. PCCV01955)
[Obstructing Prosecution, IOWA CODE § 719.3 (2014)]
15. The family and friends of convicted murderer Tracey Richter, the defendant
in State v. Richter, have aided Defendant in its creation and publication of these
defamatory complaints about the State’s witnesses.
16. Defendant has published these complaints about the State’s witnesses for
financial gain.
17. Defendant has offered to investigate the veracity of these complaints (the
same complaints Defendant authored and published), and remove and / or redact
certain content from said complaints if the witnesses each pay RipOff Report $2,000
and present RipOff Report with evidence that proves the complaints RipOff Report
published about them are false. [Extortion, IOWA CODE § 711.4 (2014)]
18. Defendant extorted one of the State’s witnesses by offering to remove the
complaints it published about the witness for $10,000. [Extortion, IOWA CODE § 711.4
(2014)]
19. Defendant’s publication of these complaints have caused significant
financial and emotional harms to the State’s witnesses.
20. The State’s witnesses have stated they would not have cooperated with law
enforcement or testified in State v. Richter had they known their personal and
professional lives would be targeted, damaged, and / or destroyed such that they
have been by Defendant.
WHEREFORE, the State of Iowa respectfully requests that the Court, following a
hearing on the merits of the State’s application, issue a permanent injunction
ordering Defendant to remove the names and images of the State’s witnesses and
3
PDF Page 5
E-FILED 2014 AUG 06 10:38 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
the secondary victims (NOT to include the removal of the undersigned’s name or
image), from its “complaints” that are related in any way to State v. Richter, and
enjoin Defendant from re-publishing the same, and order such other reliefs equitable
and just in the premises.
____________________________
Benjamin John Smith
Sac County Attorney
Sac County Courthouse
100 NW State St., Suite 9
Sac City IA 50583
Telephone: 712-662-4791
Facsimile: 712-662-4123
Email: attorney@saccounty.org
4
Back to 
