Smith Transitions to Pursuit and Deterrence of Meade
After the conviction of Ms. Richter and particularly after Mr. Smith survived the first appeal in January 2013, as expected he gained confidence in his decisions and felt justified in feeling that he was unfairly accused by the Richter family, the Ripoff Report and Darren Meade.
Smith began to use his prosecutorial power to see if he could cause those criticizing him to back off. To accomplish his desire to chill the criticism or punish his critics, Smith used a number of tools that are only available to a prosecutor. These included.
a. Issuing subpoenas that can be done confidentially. b. Issuing sealed search warrants. c. Collecting and examining private documents of his critics that would not normally be available to a private citizen including, but not limited to: bank records, emails, attorney client communications, and phone conversations. d. Distributing or releasing confidential documents publicly and privately gathered by those subpoenas. e. Filing motions to put pressure on those who were critical of him. f. Making public allegations about the behavior (criminal) of his critics that, when made by a prosecutor, is presumed to be true or valid. g. Indicting at least one of his critics, Darren Meade. None of the above actions are available to a private citizen or have the power to chill or punish to the same level as when made by a prosecutor.
Smith chose to use prosecutorial power despite knowing it so not only toward Meade but others as well, including but not limited to: a. Threatened criminal prosecution against various persons, including Magedson and Xcentric Ventures to retaliate against the political and professional criticism that has been posted on Ripoff Report; b. Unlawfully searched emails, including those containing privileged attorney-client communications; c. Disclosed attorney-client privileged communications to the public; d. Disclosed private and personal communications to the public; e. Disclosed bank account numbers and private financial records to the public in violation of law; f. Wrongfully instituted civil proceedings for the purpose of placing private records in the public records; g. Issued over 100 criminal subpoenas as part of his campaign of harassment; h. Improperly obtained and executed search warrants; and i. Falsely accused others, including Meade, of criminal conduct.
Smith engaged in this wrongful conduct to use his powers as a prosecutor that had the effective of chilling the free speech of Meade.
Assuming Smith’s affidavit claims are true, after the conviction, he spent more than 1,600 hours investigating Tracey Richter, Richter’s mother, Meade, Magnuson and others for posting criticisms about the Richter investigation and trial.
Smith issued “over 100 Rule 2.5(6) County Attorney Investigatory Subpoenas Duces Tecum.”was improper. He did
No matter how you slice it, there is a long line of people who will pay handsomely for their own private kill-switch on Internet free speech. Even so, every good arms dealer knows if the market isn't big enough (and it never is), you have to create new ones. Michael Roberts has a plan for that, using automated technology to generate defamatory content about individuals and corporations that value their reputations the bigger the better. We're talking about a whole new strain of WMDs weapons of mass defamation. Think about it: What if allegations of pedophilia were to pop up the next time you Google your name? Or obscene stories about your wife or your daughter? When we're talking about the potential ruin of your career, your marriage, or your child's future, money is no object and these predators know it. When the time is right, you'll get an email and it'll be Page1me to the rescue antidote in one hand, anthrax in the other.
Which brings us back to the question, how do I know all of this? It's simple: I was in the room while the plot was being hatched. I now know and can prove that Rexxfield isn't just another reputation management company: It's a bonafide criminal enterprise.
Look, I know I can't expect you to take my word for all this, partly because the Rexxfield gang has already made good on their first threat to destroy my reputation online. Go ahead Google my name. It's mud if you don't already know me.
I may or may not win the Pulitzer Prize for reporting, I may not be a lawyer and I may be wrong about many things, but there were good reason for anyone to be concerned about this situation and I had a right and duty to say something. If no one listens or if Smith trashes me personally, so be it, but to use his power to punish me and shut me down and ruin my life is unwarranted, offensive and illegal. I may be wrong on my broader concerns about a conspiracy with Michael Roberts and County Attorney Ben Smith, but when Smith went that far to punish not just me but others, it makes me unable to shake that I am right about that as well. I faced 25 years in prison unless I retracted my articles about Michael Robert pertaining to the attempted sexual assault/murder of his wife and children. I refused, and after 9 months, we defeated them in court.
I did my best and never claimed to be a genius reporter. I had the basic right to say something and stop a minor duty to act to try and stop a woman and her (then) three young children from being beaten and abused any further.
RED FLAGS EVERYWHERE: Serial defamer Duffy, routinely and wilfully publishes false statement of facts designed to destroy people's professional and personal lives in the EXACT fashion for which she sued Google.
This case is brought by Darren Meade to challenge the actions of Ben Smith both individually and in his capacity as Sac County Attorney. Because of the threat to our criminal justice system and the implicit biases that favor a prosecutor, it is necessary to use this introduction to prevent these biases from impacting the judicial system and to reduce the manner in which previous claims about Mr. Smith’s motives and behavior have polarized this case.
A prosecutor is just a human being susceptible to biases like everyone else. These biases can cause that prosecutor to become improperly focused on a specific person or a certain legal theory.
These biases can cause the prosecutor to become emotionally involved with a witness or suspect, in this case either his future in-laws as key witnesses or the person referred to in this Complaint as the “Male Suspect.”
On May 27, 2015, Smith dismissed all charges against Meade with prejudice without any conditions.
Smith dismissed the charges when Meade’s counsel asked him to provide the details or facts that would support the indictment.
Smith was unable to provide this information because there was none and Smith knew there was none.
Smith knew that dismissing with prejudice without conditions was a violation of Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33 because once dismissed with prejudice, the charges could not be refiled.
Only a prosecutor who knew, with absolute certainty that the person was innocent of the claims and charges would have dismissed the claims with prejudice.
Smith knew with certainty that Meade was not guilty of these charges when they were filed.
Smith filed the indictment to silence Meade as well as to pressure him to turn on Magedson and Xcentric Ventures.
Smith offered to dismiss the criminal charges with prejudice and offered absolute prosecutorial immunity to Meade in exchange for retracting his articles, and providing testimony against Ripoff Report but Meade had rejected the offers.
Mr. Smith was aware on the date he dismissed the indictment with prejudice that the facts that were used to support the indictment were exactly the same as on the day he filed them.
Mr. Smith is aware of his ethical obligations to ensure fairness to the process.
Mr. Meade could have been wrong about everything and he still has the right to question public officials in the exercise of their duty without fear of retribution.
Because of the threat to our criminal justice system and the implicit biases that favor a prosecutor, it is necessary to use this introduction to prevent these biases from impacting the judicial system and to reduce the manner in which previous claims about DA Ben Smith motives and behavior have polarized this case.
A prosecutor is just a human being susceptible to biases like everyone else. These biases can cause that prosecutor to become improperly focused on a specific person or a certain legal theory.
These biases can cause the prosecutor to become emotionally involved with a witness or suspect, in this case either his future in-laws as key witnesses or the person referred to in this Complaint as the “Male Suspect" who happens to own a reputation management company.
These biases can also cause a prosecutor to become too emotionally connected to the discovery of a key piece of evidence, in this case the pink notebook.
The issue in this claim concerns prosecutorial discretion and the power of the office. As a result of a series of events and emotionally driven responses, Mr. Smith used his discretion and the power of his office to investigate a number of people who were questioning his emotional reactions and ultimately, to indict Darren Meade.
I may or may not win the Pulitzer Prize for reporting, I may not be a lawyer and I may be wrong about many things, but there were good reason for anyone to be concerned about this situation and I had a right and duty to say something. If no one listens or if Smith trashes me personally, so be it, but to use his power to punish me and shut me down and ruin my life is unwarranted, offensive and illegal. I may be wrong on my broader concerns about a conspiracy with Roberts and Smith, but when Smith went that far to punish not just me but others, it makes me unable to shake that I am right about that as well.
Currently we are suing County Attorney Ben Smith and the State of Iowa for $25M
My dismissal hearing of the indictment is available here:
It is not coincidence that this comment is nothing but spin!
After the conviction of Ms. Richter and particularly after Mr. Smith survived the first appeal in January 2013, as expected he gained confidence in his decisions and felt justified in feeling that he was unfairly accused by the Richter family, the Ripoff Report and Darren Meade.
Smith began to use his prosecutorial power to see if he could cause those criticizing him to back off. To accomplish his desire to chill the criticism or punish his critics, Smith used a number of tools that are only available to a prosecutor. These included.
a. Issuing subpoenas that can be done confidentially.
b. Issuing sealed search warrants.
c. Collecting and examining private documents of his critics that would not normally
be available to a private citizen including, but not limited to: bank records, emails,
attorney client communications, and phone conversations.
d. Distributing or releasing confidential documents publicly and privately gathered by
those subpoenas.
e. Filing motions to put pressure on those who were critical of him.
f. Making public allegations about the behavior (criminal) of his critics that, when
made by a prosecutor, is presumed to be true or valid.
g. Indicting at least one of his critics, Darren Meade.
None of the above actions are available to a private citizen or have the power to
chill or punish to the same level as when made by a prosecutor.
Smith chose to use prosecutorial power despite knowing it so not only toward Meade but others as well, including but not limited to:
a. Threatened criminal prosecution against various persons, including Magedson and
Xcentric Ventures to retaliate against the political and professional criticism that
has been posted on Ripoff Report;
b. Unlawfully searched emails, including those containing privileged attorney-client
communications;
c. Disclosed attorney-client privileged communications to the public;
d. Disclosed private and personal communications to the public;
e. Disclosed bank account numbers and private financial records to the public in
violation of law;
f. Wrongfully instituted civil proceedings for the purpose of placing private records
in the public records;
g. Issued over 100 criminal subpoenas as part of his campaign of harassment;
h. Improperly obtained and executed search warrants; and
i. Falsely accused others, including Meade, of criminal conduct.
Smith engaged in this wrongful conduct to use his powers as a prosecutor that had the effective of chilling the free speech of Meade.
Assuming Smith’s affidavit claims are true, after the conviction, he spent more than 1,600 hours investigating Tracey Richter, Richter’s mother, Meade, Magnuson and others for posting criticisms about the Richter investigation and trial.
Smith issued “over 100 Rule 2.5(6) County Attorney Investigatory Subpoenas
Duces Tecum.”was improper. He did
Michael Roberts bragging about his whole new strain of WMD's weapons of mass defamation [ see pages 22 and 23 ]
Which brings us back to the question, how do I know all of this? It's simple: I was in the room while the plot was being hatched. I now know and can prove that Rexxfield isn't just another reputation management company: It's a bonafide criminal enterprise.
Look, I know I can't expect you to take my word for all this, partly because the Rexxfield gang has already made good on their first threat to destroy my reputation online. Go ahead Google my name. It's mud if you don't already know me.
Michael Roberts : 2006 lawsuit alleged Roberts and his company Mile2 had placed child pornography, child torture onto laptops.
Michael Roberts : Murder Suspect Doc
https://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/michael-robertsstillasuspectasof12009pdf
. Darren Meade , concerned guy who was on to something and who got stomped on.
I did my best and never claimed to be a genius reporter. I had the basic right to say something and stop a minor duty to act to try and stop a woman and her (then) three young children from being beaten and abused any further.
Oddly, I post under my name, yet you post anonymously ....
https://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/trade-secret-agreement-to-censor-internet-with-an-sql-inject ion-code
Agreed.
Roberts and Duffy back in 2013 were having their fake claims removed from the Internet.
https://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/121777977-dear-michaelroberts
The irony, how Janice Duffy and Michael Roberts have been warning the world about dangers of cyber-bullying while being the primary perpetrators of it.
RED FLAGS EVERYWHERE: Serial defamer Duffy, routinely and wilfully publishes false statement of facts designed to destroy people's professional and personal lives in the EXACT fashion for which she sued Google.
Darren Meade v. Ben Smith
A prosecutor is just a human being susceptible to biases like everyone else. These
biases can cause that prosecutor to become improperly focused on a specific person or a certain legal theory.
These biases can cause the prosecutor to become emotionally involved with a
witness or suspect, in this case either his future in-laws as key witnesses or the person referred to in this Complaint as the “Male Suspect.”
On May 27, 2015, Smith dismissed all charges against Meade with prejudice without any conditions.
Smith dismissed the charges when Meade’s counsel asked him to provide the details or facts that would support the indictment.
Smith was unable to provide this information because there was none and Smith knew there was none.
Smith knew that dismissing with prejudice without conditions was a violation of Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33 because once dismissed with prejudice, the charges could not be refiled.
Only a prosecutor who knew, with absolute certainty that the person was innocent of the claims and charges would have dismissed the claims with prejudice.
Smith knew with certainty that Meade was not guilty of these charges when they were filed.
Smith filed the indictment to silence Meade as well as to pressure him to turn on Magedson and Xcentric Ventures.
Smith offered to dismiss the criminal charges with prejudice and offered absolute prosecutorial immunity to Meade in exchange for retracting his articles, and providing testimony
against Ripoff Report but Meade had rejected the offers.
Mr. Smith was aware on the date he dismissed the indictment with prejudice that the facts that were used to support the indictment were exactly the same as on the day he filed them.
Mr. Smith is aware of his ethical obligations to ensure fairness to the process.
Mr. Meade could have been wrong about everything and he still has the right to question public officials in the exercise of their duty without fear of retribution.
Charges Against Darren Meade Dismissed With Prejudice (as Darren Meade)
behavior have polarized this case.
A prosecutor is just a human being susceptible to biases like everyone else. These biases can cause that prosecutor to become improperly focused on a specific person or a certain legal theory.
These biases can cause the prosecutor to become emotionally involved with a witness or suspect, in this case either his future in-laws as key witnesses or the person referred to
in this Complaint as the “Male Suspect" who happens to own a reputation management company.
These biases can also cause a prosecutor to become too emotionally connected to the discovery of a key piece of evidence, in this case the pink notebook.
The issue in this claim concerns prosecutorial discretion and the power of the office. As a result of a series of events and emotionally driven responses, Mr. Smith used his discretion and the power of his office to investigate a number of people who were questioning his emotional
reactions and ultimately, to indict Darren Meade.
I may or may not win the Pulitzer Prize for reporting, I may not be a lawyer and I may be wrong about many things, but there were good reason for anyone to be concerned about this situation and I had a right and duty to say something. If no one listens or if Smith trashes me personally, so be it, but to use his power to punish me and shut me down and ruin my life is unwarranted, offensive and illegal. I may be wrong on my broader concerns about a conspiracy with Roberts and Smith, but when Smith went that far to punish not just me but others, it makes me unable to shake that I am right about that as well.
Currently we are suing County Attorney Ben Smith and the State of Iowa for $25M
My dismissal hearing of the indictment is available here:
https://youtu.be/98WnZysDT9o
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Darren.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt