Data Breaches A National Crisis, Really?

When Investigative Reporter Brian Krebs broke the news that Target Company had experienced a data breach, we at scamFRAUDalert asked the question, how pervasive this was? This was December 24, 2013. Fast forward nine months (9) later, we’ve now learned of JP Morgan Chase and there have been other breaches at Home Depot, Michael’s Stores, Signature Systems, Jimmy Johns, The Goodwill Stores, P.F. Chang’s, Neiman Marcus, SuperValu, and the list goes on and on of breaches unreported nationally. As of October 7, 2014, there have been 589 data breaches recorded by the Identity Theft Recourse Center (ITRC) as compare to 467 breaches in all of 2013.

Based on our experienced of monitoring cybercrimes online, this is the new gold mine for these guys. They seems to gravitate to where the action is. Governments and companies worldwide should take an offensive approach to data security breaches rather then a defensive posture. Companies and security experts should follow Mircosoft lead in our fight to keep the internet safe. If they don’t, it simply going to get worse. Our private information are at risk. These records are being SOLD all over the internet making them accessible to creeps, slimes, parasites, psychopaths, and cyber criminals.

In our opinion, this is not simply a national crisis, this is an imminent threat as the ebola virus is, as terrorism is and as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) were in the 1980’s. We should not be going after these thugs after the fact. By then, it perhaps too late.

Tell Us What You Think

Related:

About these ads

Reputation Management Sites

Are Reputation Management sites offering a service that protect businesses and individuals against consumer complaints, accusations and other malfeasance, or are they enabling cyber-criminals?

Here’s what we know. As cyber-crime awareness become a trend so as cyber criminals. These pimps reinvent themselves as they are now in the business of consumer complaints and reputation management.

Reputation Management Methods:
“injection source code” that lets the user manipulate the metadata behind a website, adding a “noindex” tag that drops the results on search engines like Google and Bing — hiding them completely.
It is a crime to inject source codes into anyone computer
18 U.S. Code § 1030 – Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers

management reputation_googlemanagement reputation_yahooTimothyWeissbrot2

Related Article:

Court Awarded Attorney Fees ~ Colocation America

On March 13, 2013, LA Superior Court awarded Attorney Fees on Appeal in thelogo Anti-SLAPP decision against Colocation America Corporation and Albert Ahdoot.

The Appellate Court had ruled that scamFRAUDalert Attorney is entitled to recover Attorney costs associated with the Appeal. The Court awarded $30,995.00.

Our Deepest Regret – Ripoffreport.com

It is our deepest regret that ED Magedson founder of http://Ripoffreport.com Ripoff Report and THE EDITOR of the site has decided to aid those who seek to destroy scamFRAUDalert by providing them a platform for them to publish FALSE and misinformation or whatever nonsense they choose about scamFRAUDalert.

To our disbelief, these are the same group of individuals disseminating FALSE information about Ripoffreport.com – See Youtube Video and with whom Ripoffreport.com have had several lawsuits and court ordered judgments against. We have common enemies ED base on our mission as consumer advocates.

We are referring to the owner(s)/operator(s) of the sites below with whom ED Megadson has allowed to post whatever they choose about scamFRAUDalert which Mr. Megadson had denied posting such garbage in the past. Reason for ED change of heart, SFA refusal to retract Google DMCA replied response.

whatis SFAED Magedson runs his website http://ripoffreport.com based on biases and enemy list. scamFRAUDalert were never an enemy of Mr. Magedson until we responded to ED DMCA Notice to Google.com. It is our belief that ED Megadson is a wacko eccentric individual.

  1. http://omegaenterprisesUSA.com
  2. http://eliteconsultingservices.com
  3. http://lawenforcementassociations.com
  4. http://complaintsboard.com
  5. http://reviewstalk.com
  6. http://scambook.com
  7. http://ripoffonline.com
  8. http://scaminformer.com aka http://scamexposure.com
  9. http://jailarrest.com
  10. http://wikiwarnings.com
  11. http://warning-notice.com
  12. http://Predatorswatch.com
  13. http://Potentialpredators.com
  14. http://MikeKingUSA.com
  15. http://wikiprobe.org

We at scamFRAUDalert do NOT encourage, engage in or condor such behavior. We POLICE our sites with the highest level of integrity. This is our trademark and we pride our work on this.

From what we’ve seen and have concluded is that ED Magedson d/b/a Ripoffreport.com is attempting to gain competitive advantage by allowing those who seek to destroy scamFRAUDalert to post whatever they want including OUR family member names purchased online. Where do you draw the line ED?

Ripoffreport now include in most subject lines and subject titles” the words “scam” or “fraud.” Not every consumer GRIPE is a FRAUD Mr. Magedson. You need to STOP categorizing consumer complaints as FRAUD.

We too are not perfect. Best of luck ED as we compete going forward and seek a resolution. Simply ED, delete or remove those postings and we would do the same.

ED Magedson

EDitor@RipoffReport.com

ED Magedson SAYS

We are not lawyers.

We are not a collection agency.

We are Consumer Advocates.

…the victims’ advocate

WE are Civil and Human Rights Activists

We are a Nationwide Consumer Reporting News Agency

…by consumers, for consumers

Ripoff Report

PO Box 310,

Tempe, Arizona, 85280

602-359-4357

Remember…

Don’t let them get away with it!

Make sure they make the Ripoff Report!

BBB – Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details
49 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 26 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 16
Billing/Collection Issues 3
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 30
Total Closed Complaints 49

Additional Complaint Information

Recently, Better Business Bureau has received a pattern of complaints for this company that allege billing, advertising, service, repair, contract, and customer service issues. Complaints allege this business allows individuals to file reports about businesses and individuals that consumers may state are not true on the company’s website: http://www.ripoffreport.com. Some complainants report that when they contact the company regarding the removal of the reports, the business may inform the complainant that they must pay a fee (usually $2,000), to have the report removed and/or arbitrated.

Some complainants state that their personal information, such as an address or a phone number, may be listed in the report. Additionally, some complainants allege an overall difficulty reaching the company when problems arise. At this time, a representative from Ripoff Report has indicated to BBB that the company will not work to resolve customer disputes through BBB.

Read Complaints | Definitions | BBB Complaint Process | File a Complaint against Rip Off Report

Unauthorized Bank Charges Withdrawals


The trend we are beginning to see online is the unauthorized ACH bank charges scamalertwithdrawals or unauthorized credit card charges.

We first begun to notice this trend mainly associated with payday loans and now it’s spreading to other areas of the e-commerce universe.

The risk here is that if you have used your bank debit card and transacted online purchases from some unscrupulous merchant or have applied for a PayDayLoan or may have fill out an online application that require your banking information, you are at risk of having your bank account being charge.

In other instances, consumers are asked to contact a 1-800 or 1-866 number that appeared on the bank statements if they which to dispute charges. The number provided is a number for some ANSWERING SERVICE.

Below are the names of websites or other names being used to carry out these scams.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

We will continue to update this listing as more become available.

  1. COMPLETESAVE .CO.UK
  2. Loan Tree Advances
  3. Palm Loan Advances
  4. supportbcltd.com
  5. Money Plus Saver
  6. http://myfeeplan.com
  7. BidCactus
  8. supportkfs.com
  9. PayForWeb.com
  10. SafeCart ~ www.safecart.com
  11. BBaySupport.com
  12. DRAGOONCS.COM
  13. fenixsupport.com – Fenix Support
  14. jetshelp.com
  15. Secureibusiness.com
  16. Impact Cash Loans ~ http://www.impactcashloans.com
  17. Loan 4 Today~ loan4utoday.com
  18. FastLoanFast.com
  19. ravenmcs.com
  20. MarauderCS.com ~ http://www.maraudercs.com
  21. HYDRA SUPPORT ~ hydrasupport.com
  22. BTO Support ~ BTOSupport.com
  23. GFSSUPPORT.COM
  24. http://www.pgbincsupport.com
  25. OakRHelp.com
  26. http://www.meltdsupport.com
  27. IMMORTALMCS.com
  28. http://www.smarketingcs.com
  29. thorsupport.com
  30. Hydra Fund 1
  31. PGBinCSupport.com
  32. MeltDsupport.com
  33. Direct Money Loans
  34. hydrafund.org
  35. Cash Advance 1500
  36. BansheeCS.com
  37. MarauderCS.COM
  38. FashionPay.com
  39. BuddyBeActive.com
  40. FashionPay.com
  41. MyTechHelp.com
  42. BuddyBeActive.com
  43. payloansofamerica.com
  44. http://www.paydayloanusfast.com
  45. fast1500paydayloan.com
  46. hydra-fund-loan.com
  47. hydra-fund-loan.info
  48. hydra-fund.com
  49. hydrafundii.com
  50. Mobiloan ~ NAMAKANCAPITALLLC.INFO
  51. Consultant Finance Group, Inc. ~ mycfgloan.com
  52. Capital Advance, LLC ~ https://yourloanfunding.com
  53. paymeloans.com
  54. bestchoiceforpayloan.com
  55. Libertypaydayonline.com
  56. Cash45.com
  57. gemvsupport.com
  58. Lendingloanshoponline.com
  59. 911cashquick.com
  60. paydaygetloantoday.com
  61. Libertyskyloans.com
  62. paydayreadyforyou.com
  63. Capital Advance Capitol- (also known as Loan Assistance)
  64. http://www.LearnAboutPaydayLoans.biz
  65. Vantage Funding – https://vantagefundingapp.com
  66. Palm Loan Advances – http://www./palmloanadvances.com
  67. Ideal Cash Advance – http://www.idealcashadvance.com
  68. Loan Tree Advances – https://loantreeadvances.com
  69. Your Loan Funding – https://yourloanfunding.com
  70. Pacific Advances – https://pacificadvances.com
  71. Sonic Cash ~ http://www.soniccash.com
  72. MobiLoans, LLC ~ http://www.mobiloans.com
  73. Money Leaf Financial ~ moneyleaffinancial.com
  74. acredithub.com
  75. cgloan.com
  76. loan-support.com
  77. mmlloan.com
  78. moneyleaffinancial.com
  79. mycredittoolbox.com
  80. paycashhub.com
  81. success-loan.com
  82. zmsloan.com
  83. MoneyOnTheGo.net
  84. WGPSupport.com
  85. LFSSupport.com
  86. ASARISSupport.com
  87. BlueBGSupport.com
  88. programmestop.com
  89. PGBincSupport.com
  90. RFLTDSupport.com
  91. MyEastCGHelp.com
  92. crctincsupport.com

Mugshots Profiteering A Proliferating Threat

The New Gold Rush Online
Sale of Mugshots,  Background People Search,
Online Reputation Management [ORM]

scamFRAUDalert believe individual’s PUBLIC RECORDS are not COMMUNITY PROPERTY of  the internet nor are they the property of anyone who can quantify such information and make them accessible to the public via the internet.

They are the PRIVATE PROPERTY of  INDIVIDUALS who may have had run in with the law enforcement and MUST remain PRIVATE.

Unless such information are sought by LOCAL, STATE, FEDERAL officials or some LEGAL ENTITY for legitimate purposes, these RECORDS in the PUBLIC domain are PRIVATE and not a PUBLIC COMMODITY FOR EXTORTION’S PURPOSES.

What really got our attention is the website Potential Predators who name changed to PredatorsWatch.com.

The operators of the websites had set up a mouse trap by advertising on craigslist.org for lonely men looking to hookup with females for some rendezvous by responding to craigslist’s personal ad section “women seeking men.”
logopersonals

The operator and his co-conspirators uploaded thousands of photos they had obtained from men showing their penis or behaving indecent in chats with someone who they thought were females  some of who clearly stated they were minor.

The operators begun sending out email to these men informing them they were listed on potential predator which name quickly change to predatorswatch.com.

For a fee of $99 – $499, the site operators told these men they could have their indecent mugshot, chat or insane photos removed. This is clearly a practice of extortion in our opinion. This is a proliferating threat to the internet and privacy.

Who Is Complaintsboard?

Houston !!! We have a problem

Complaintsboard.com and it’s affiliated sites as listed below represents a present and imminent threat to authentic consumer advocate group such as scamFRAUDalert, Artist Against419, FraudWatchers.com, Jowein, scamwarners.com and other scam fighting sites.
WE WEAR THE BADGE OF HONOR TO PROVE OUR MISSION FOCUS WORK.”
The practices of manufacturing complaints are unacceptable and just plain outright unethically. These scumbags should be stop.

Complaintsboard.com and their business partners are a threat to the global internet infrastructure base on their business practices

__________________

scamFRAUDalert have observed  some complaints posted on complaintsboard.com are manufactured i.e. posted by commercial spammers.
The Operators of Complaintsboard.com also engage in the promotion of unapproved online pharmacy websites – promoting the sale prescription drugs online without a Doctor prescription.

Address:
W 110th St., Ste. xxx
Overland Park, KS 66210-2332
United States

Phone: (913) xxx-xxxx
Fax: (913) 23x-xxxx

Be aware! To save our time and prevent our company from unnecessary expenses, in case of legal threats, all information posted about specific person or company will be moved to tens affiliated websites. As a result, the first page of Google Search Results will be filled with consumer reports about your business and related people. For more information see our Terms of Service.

  1. Complaintsboard Engages in Cybersquating
  2. Complaintsboard.com is Merareview.com
  3. Scammers Are On Complaintsboard.com
  4. ScamInformer.com
  5. Scamtracers.com
  6. Scamradar.com
  7. scamchecker.com
  8. bizclaims.com
  9. scamfound.org
  10. spamcaution.com
  11. scammotion
  12. Spaminform.com
  13. reviewstalk.com
  14. Scamchasers.com
  15. Scamadvocates.com
  16. scamfraudripoff.com
  17. ripoffonline.com
  18. ripofftalk.com

As a business owner, it pains me to see all sorts of businesses being slammed on this website called ComplaintsBoard.com . Sure, it has become a really popular avenue for consumers to vent their frustrations on businesses who have done them wrong.

But… the scary part is that vicious competitors are now using this vehicle to slander other legitimate businesses.

I have seen so many fake-sounding complaints about businesses on this website. Where is their sense of decency?

Here’s to you Complaintsboard.com :

How would you like your competitors to slander your site and post fake complaints about you?

And you, Elizabeth Arden, are you getting richer and richer everyday while these businesses are hurting? I hope that you sleep really well tonight?

Complaints Board

W 110th St Ste 400
Overland Park, KS 66210-2407
(240) 764-48637500
http://www.complaintsboard.com


United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________

No. 09-2601
___________

Susan Johnson; Robert Johnson; *
Cozy Kittens Cattery LLC, *
*
Appellants, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Elizabeth Arden, dba *
ComplaintsBoard.com; Michelle *
Reitenger; ComplaintsBoard.com, *
InMotion Hosting Inc.; Melanie *
Lowry; Kathleen Heineman, *
*
Appellees. *
___________

Submitted: February 10, 2010
Filed: August 4, 2010
___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge,1 SMITH and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Susan and Robert Johnson filed a state civil suit making multiple claims against
several defendants as a result of allegedly defamatory statements posted on an internet
discussion board. The defendants removed the case to federal court. The original

1. The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.
complaint included six defendants; however, the Johnsons located and served only
InMotion Hosting, Inc. (“InMotion”), Melanie Lowry, and Kathleen Heineman.

The district court2 dismissed the claims against InMotion with prejudice,
finding that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)
and (e)(3) protects InMotion. The court dismissed the claims against Lowry and
Heineman without prejudice, finding that Lowry and Heineman had insufficient
contacts with the State of Missouri to be subjected to personal jurisdiction in Missouri.
Finally, the district court set aside a state court default judgment against Lowry under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). On appeal, the Johnsons argue that the district
court erred in dismissing the claims against InMotion, Heineman, and Lowry and
erred in setting aside the default judgment against Lowry. For the reasons stated
below, we disagree and affirm.

I. Background
The Johnsons reside in Unionville, Missouri, where they own and operate the
exotic cat breeding business known as the Cozy Kitten Cattery. The Cozy Kitten
Cattery is a Missouri limited liability company formed in 2007. Its principal office and
place of business is located in Missouri, and the Johnsons are its sole members.
Around December 2004, the Johnsons obtained a registered federal trademark and
service mark for “Cozy Kitten Cattery.” The Johnsons operate their cat breeding
business under that trademark and licensed the use of that trademark and service mark
to Cozy Kitten Cattery, LLC. The Johnsons advertise their business on the internet and
have a website with the web address http://www.CozyKittens.com.

Someone posted several allegedly defamatory statements about the Cozy Kitten
Cattery on the interactive website http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com. In response, the

2. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
Johnsons and Cozy Kittens Cattery filed suit against Elizabeth Arden d/b/a
http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com, Michelle Reitenger, http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com,
InMotion, Lowry, and Heineman in Putnam County, Missouri. Counts I, II and III allege that all six defendants conspired to use http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com to post false statements about the Johnsons, including statements that the Johnsons kill cats, the Johnsons “rip off” cat breeders, the Johnsons steal kittens, the Johnsons’ cats and kittens are infected, and the Johnsons are con artists. The Johnsons assert that they requested all defendants to remove the statements but that the statements were not removed for more than 48 hours.

The Johnsons assert that they suffered lost sales of kittens and cats, lost revenue and lost goodwill and will continue to suffer damages because of the statements posted on the interactive website.

The Johnsons assert that InMotion, Lowry, and Heineman were all served with
the Summons and Petition/Complaint, although all three dispute service. The Johnsons
were unable to locate or serve defendants Elizabeth Arden d/b/a
http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com, Michelle Reitenger or http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com.

Heineman, Lowry, and InMotion moved in district court to dismiss the action
based on lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. Heineman and InMotion also asserted improper venue as an additional ground for dismissal.

A. Kathleen Heineman
Heineman is a resident of the State of Colorado and has been since 1981.
Heineman is a cat breeder and also works as an accountant. In both capacities, she works out of her home in Colorado. She maintains no offices in Missouri, owns no property in Missouri and does not pay taxes in Missouri. She also alleges that she does not own any domain name registrations and does not own or operate any website.
However, the website, http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com, and the related cat breeding and selling business are licensed by the State of Colorado to Heineman, and thus for the purpose of this appeal, we will assume that Heineman owns the website in question.
The Johnsons assert that Heineman sells cats and kittens throughout the United States, including the State of Missouri, while advertising on the internet using the web address http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com. The Johnsons allege that Heineman advertises and sells cats and kittens under the name “Cozy Kittens and Cuddly Cats.”

Heineman had a limited business relationship with the Johnsons, which ended
in March 2006. The Johnsons never employed Heineman or paid her a salary. She provided administrative assistance to the Johnsons from her home office in Colorado, including proofreading services and other miscellaneous work on an intermittent basis, such as helping them to acquire cats.

Between 2002 and 2006, the Johnsons contend that Heineman purchased about 16 cats for them from breeders throughout the United States. Heineman did not profit from the purchase of these cats. Some of these cats were shipped to Heineman in Colorado and then eventually shipped to Susan Johnson in Missouri; other cats were picked up from the sellers directly by the Johnsons or their relatives.

In 2002, Heineman twice delivered cats to the Johnsons in Missouri. During the course of their relationship, the Johnsons contend that they shipped seven cats to Heineman and charged her only for their out-of-pocket expenses.

In the course of their relationship, Heineman also purchased advertising space
from the Johnsons on http://www.CozyKittens.com for a fee of $100 per kitten advertised.
The Johnsons’ website then listed Heineman’s email address as the contact email for persons interested in those cats. These advertisements were not targeted to Missouri residents, and Heineman did not place any cats or kittens or do any other business in Missouri. Heineman advertised approximately 50 cats in this manner. Heineman asserts that she has not posted or authorized anyone else to post anything about the Johnsons on ww.ComplaintsBoard.com or on any other website.
B. InMotion Hosting, Inc. – InMotion is a California corporation and maintains its principal place of business there. InMotion, as an internet service provider (ISP), only hosted the http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com website. InMotion does not operate http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com or create any of its content. InMotion does not monitor or control the content of its customer’s websites, including
http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com.

The website http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com is published worldwide on the
internet. The website is interactive, permitting and encouraging individuals to post complaints about businesses and business owners. Individuals seeking to post complaints on the website are required to register with the website and provide identifying information, such as their name and email address.

C. Melanie Lowry
Lowry resides in California and does not own any property in Missouri, does
not have any bank accounts or telephone listings in Missouri, has never paid taxes in Missouri, and has never transacted business in Missouri. Lowry asserts that she has never done business with the Johnsons, does not know them, and has only spoken to Susan Johnson one time on the telephone—a call initiated by Susan Johnson.

The Johnsons assert that Lowry’s postings on http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com
included statements that Susan and Robert Johnson had sold a breeder cat without providing the papers, offered a refund but refused to pay it, stolen money from their customers, and fed their cats Tylenol, causing them to suffer horrible deaths and pre-death injuries.

The record contains one alleged posting by Lowry on http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com. That alleged posting does not mention Missouri, and there is no other evidence in the record indicating that the focal point of this particular posting, or any of Lowry’s other postings, was Missouri.

The Johnsons filed a state court complaint against Lowry, who they assert was
properly served on July 17, 2008. Lowry did not respond or file a pleading. A
Missouri default judgment was filed against Lowry on September 22, 2008. Lowry filed a motion to set aside the judgment on November 12, 2008.

D. Procedural History
The defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity of
citizenship. Heineman filed a motion to dismiss contending that she was not properly served and that the district court had improper venue and lacked personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The district court granted Heineman’s motion for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Johnsons then filed a motion for an order of default against InMotion, which had not yet filed any pleadings in the district court.
The district court denied the motion.

InMotion then filed its motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), contending that it
was not properly served, the district court did not have venue, the complaint failed to state a claim for relief, it had insufficient contacts with Missouri to be sued there, and Missouri was an inconvenient forum. InMotion did not raise the CDA as a defense.
The district court raised the CDA sua sponte in its order granting InMotion’s motion to dismiss.

Finally, Lowry, pro se, filed a two-page letter/motion moving to dismiss the
complaint against her, claiming that she was not properly served and that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction because she had insufficient contacts with the State of Missouri. In the same motion Lowry moved to set aside the default judgment on liability pending against her.
The district court entered an order dismissing the claims against InMotion with
prejudice and dismissing the claims against Lowry and Heineman without prejudice.
The district court found that Lowry and Heineman had insufficient contacts with the State of Missouri to be subjected to personal jurisdiction there and that the CDA barred claims against InMotion. The district court also set aside the state court default judgment against Lowry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) but made no specific finding in support of that ruling.

II. Discussion

On appeal, the Johnsons argue that the district court erred in

(1) dismissing the
claims against InMotion, after finding that InMotion was immune from suit under the CDA;

(2) dismissing the claims against Heineman for lack of personal jurisdiction;
(3) dismissing the claims against Lowry for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (4) abused its discretion in setting aside the default judgment against Lowry.

A. Communications Decency Act

The Johnsons first argue that the district court erroneously dismissed their
claims after concluding InMotion is immune under the CDA. The Johnsons contend that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) and (e)(3) merely provide that a provider of internet services shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of information on the internet provided by another party but does not immunize a provider from suit. The Johnsons assert that Missouri law provides for joint liability where a wrong is done by concert of action and common intent and purpose. According to the Johnsons, the CDA would only bar actions against website operators deemed to be the “publisher or speaker” of defamatory material.

InMotion responds that the district court correctly found that InMotion was
immune from suit under the CDA. Additionally, InMotion asserts that it maintained no control and had no influence over the content that the Johnsons alleged was posted on http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com by unrelated third parties. Because of this, InMotion maintains, it could not have “acted in concert” or “intentionally inflicted emotional distress” in a manner that caused any damage to the Johnsons.

This case presents an issue of first impression for this court, as we have not
previously interpreted § 230(c). “Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we
review de novo.” Minn. Supply Co. v. Raymond Corp., 472 F.3d 524, 537 (8th Cir.
2006). The CDA states that “[n]o 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,” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), and expressly preempts any
state law to the contrary, id. § 230(e)(3).3 The CDA defines an “information content
provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the
creation or development of information provided through the internet or any other
interactive computer service.” Id. at § 230(f)(3).

Read together, these provisions bar plaintiffs from holding ISPs legally
responsible for information that third parties created and developed. See Fair Hous.
Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1162–64
(9th Cir. 2008) (holding that CDA immunity did not apply to website that was
designed to force subscribers to divulge protected characteristics, but that CDA
immunity did apply to the “Additional Comments” section of the website where the
information was created by third parties and not required by the website ISP).
“Congress thus established a general rule that providers of interactive computer
services are liable only for speech that is properly attributable to them.” Nemet
Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 2009).

3
Section 230(e)(3) states:
(3) State law—Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State
from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of
action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local
law that is inconsistent with this section.

-8-
“The majority of federal circuits have interpreted the CDA to establish broad
‘federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for
information originating with a third-party user of the service.'” Almeida v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 456 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Zeran v. Am.
Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997)). The district court, following majority
circuit precedent, held that § 230(c)(1) blocks civil liability when web hosts and other
ISPs refrain from filtering or censoring the information that third parties created on
their sites. Green v. Am. Online, 318 F.3d 465, 471 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that under
the CDA the defendant ISP is not liable for failing to monitor, screen, or delete
allegedly defamatory content from its site).

It is undisputed that InMotion did not originate the material that the Johnsons
deem damaging. InMotion is not a “publisher or speaker” as § 230(c)(1) uses those
terms, therefore, the district court held that InMotion cannot be liable under any
state-law theory to the persons harmed by the allegedly defamatory material. Five
circuit courts agree. See Universal Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413,
419 (1st Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of a claim brought by a public-traded
company against an internet message board operator for allegedly false and
defamatory postings by pseudonymous posters); Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018
1032–33 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that even if operator of internet services could have
reasonably concluded that the information was sent for internet publication, he was
immunized from liability for the defamatory speech as a “provider or user of
interactive computer services” under the CDA); Green v. Am. Online, 318 F.3d at 471;
Ben Ezra, Weinstein & Co. v. Am. Online, Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 986 (10th Cir. 2000)
(finding that defendant ISP was immune to the defamation claim under the CDA when
it made its own editorial decisions with respect to third-party information published
on its website); Zeran, 129 F.3d at 332–34 (holding that the CDA barred claims
against defendant ISP that allegedly delayed in removing defamatory messages posted
by unidentified third party, refused to post retractions of those messages, and failed
to screen for similar postings thereafter).

-9-
District courts in this circuit have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g.,
PatentWizard, Inc. v. Kinko’s, Inc., 163 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1072 (D.S.D. 2001)
(holding that Ҥ 230 of the Communication[s] Decency Act errs on the side of robust
communication and prevents the plaintiffs from moving forward with their claims”
that a company that allowed users to access the internet via its computers could be
held liable for the actions of one of those users).

The Johnsons cite Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008), for support. Craigslist held that
Ҥ 230(c) as a whole cannot be understood as a general prohibition of civil liability for
web-site operators and other online content hosts. . . .” Id. at 669. However, while the
Seventh Circuit construes § 230(c)(1) to permit liability for ISPs, it limited that
liability to ISPs that intentionally designed their systems to facilitate illegal acts, such
as stealing music. Id. at 670 (citing Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster,
Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir.
2003)). Specifically, Craigslist held that an ISP could not be held liable for allowing
third parties to place ads in violation of the Fair Housing Act on its website if the ISP
did not induce the third party to place discriminatory ads. Id. at 671–72.

The record contains no evidence that InMotion designed its website to be a
portal for defamatory material or do anything to induce defamatory postings. We
conclude that the CDA provides ISPs like InMotion with federal immunity against
state tort defamation actions that would make service providers liable for information
originating with third-party users of the service such as the other defendants in this
case.

Therefore we decline the Johnsons’ invitation to construe § 230(c)(1) as
permitting liability against InMotion for material originating with a third party. See
Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330 (stating that Ҥ 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims
that would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role. Thus, lawsuits

-10-
seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional
editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter
content—are barred”).

Because InMotion was merely an ISP host and not an information content
provider, the Johnsons’ claims against InMotion fail as a matter of law under
§ 230(c)(1), and the district court properly dismissed the claims.

B. Personal Jurisdiction
1. Kathleen Heineman
The Johnsons next argue that the district court erred by dismissing the claims
against Heineman for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Johnsons maintain that
Heineman purposefully directed internet activities at Missouri citizens. The Johnsons
also assert that the record establishes personal jurisdiction under the Missouri long
arm statute.

Heineman responds that the Johnsons cannot challenge the district court’s ruling
because they waived any opposition by not filing a timely objection. In the alternative,
Heineman argues that the district court correctly ruled it lacked personal jurisdiction
over her. According to Heineman, the record does not reflect that she had systematic
or continuous contacts with Missouri or, even if she did, that they were aimed or
purposefully directed at Missouri.

First, as a threshold question, we address whether the Johnsons may challenge
the district court’s decision to grant Heineman’s motion. Heineman contends that the
Johnsons have waived any challenge to the district court’s order dismissing her from
the lawsuit because they failed to file a timely opposition to the motion to dismiss at
the district court.

-11-
Heineman filed a motion to dismiss all counts against her, and the Johnsons did
not file a timely response. Instead, two weeks after their deadline passed, the Johnsons
filed a motion for additional time. The Johnsons then filed a response to Heineman’s
motion before the district court ruled on the Johnsons’ motion for additional time. An
affidavit from Susan Johnson was attached with the response. The district court denied
the Johnsons’ motion for additional time and struck the response from the record. The
district court subsequently granted Heineman’s motion to dismiss, finding that the
Johnsons did not respond in a timely manner, but nevertheless, “out of caution,” the
district court stated that it considered Susan Johnson’s affidavit before ruling on
Heineman’s motion to dismiss.

“It is a well-established rule that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be
considered by this court as a basis for reversal.” Edwards v. Hurtel, 724 F.2d 689, 690
(8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). “The primary purpose of the rule is promptly to inform
the district judge of possible errors, and thus give the judge an opportunity to
reconsider the ruling and make desired changes.” Id. This rule is followed “in all but
exceptional cases where the obvious result would be a plain miscarriage of justice or
inconsistent with substantial justice.” Kelley v. Crunk, 713 F.2d 426, 427 (8th Cir.
1983) (per curiam).

In Shanklin v. Fitzgerald, a plaintiff filed certain exhibits without properly
authenticating the exhibits. 397 F.3d 596, 601 (8th Cir. 2005). The defendant made
a motion to strike the exhibits, and the plaintiff did not oppose. Id. The district court
granted the motion to strike, and on appeal the plaintiff contended that the district
court erred in striking the motion. Id. We held that “[a]bsent exceptional
circumstances, we cannot consider issues not raised in the district court.” Id.

The Johnsons distinguish Shanklin by pointing out that the district court
considered the affidavit from Susan Johnson in making a ruling on the motion to
dismiss, while the Shanklin court did not review any documents. Also, the Johnsons

-12-
did attempt to oppose the motion to dismiss, although in an untimely fashion. In
Shanklin the plaintiff did not even attempt to file an out-of-time opposition. We find
merit in this argument, because the district court acknowledged that it considered
some opposition to the motion—Susan Johnson’s affidavit—which the Johnsons
clearly submitted for the purpose of opposing the motion to dismiss. Therefore, the
trial court had an opportunity to “reconsider” the issue of whether to dismiss knowing
that the Johnsons opposed dismissal. In fact, in the district court’s order, it specifically
stated that “out of caution, and because the Court must construe the jurisdictional facts
in the light most favorable to the Johnsons, the Court has considered the affidavit of
Sue Johnson . . . . ” Therefore, we hold that the Johnsons sufficiently preserved their
argument for appeal.

Grants of motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) are reviewed de novo. First Nat’l Bank of Lewisville,
Ark. v. First Nat’l Bank of Clinton, Ky., 258 F.3d 727, 729 (8th Cir. 2001). “If the
District Court does not hold a hearing and instead relies on pleadings and affidavits,
then we must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
resolve all factual conflicts in favor of that party.” Epps v. Stewart Info. Serv. Corp.,
327 F.3d 642, 646–47 (8th Cir. 2003).

In Missouri, to obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant, “the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that (1) the
cause of action arose out of an activity covered by Missouri’s long-arm
statute, . . . and (2) the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with
Missouri to satisfy the requirements of due process.”

Berry v. Berry (In re Marriage of Berry), 155 S.W.3d 838, 840 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)
(quoting Wray v. Wray, 73 S.W.3d 646, 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)). “The evidentiary
showing required at the prima facie stage is minimal. . . . ” Willnerd v. First Nat’l
Neb., Inc., 558 F.3d 770, 778 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citation
omitted).

-13-
Missouri’s long-arm statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 506.500, confers jurisdiction to
the extent allowed by the Due Process Clause.4 State ex rel Deere and Co. v. Pinnell,
454 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Mo. 1970). Under this standard, “[p]ersonal jurisdiction exists
only if the contacts between the defendant and the forum state are sufficient to
establish that the defendant has purposefully availed himself of the benefits and
protections of the forum state.” Johnson v. Woodcock, 444 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir.
2006). In Aftanase v. Economy Baler Co., we set forth five factors courts must
consider when determining whether there are sufficient minimum contacts to confer
jurisdiction. 343 F.2d 187, 197 (8th Cir. 1965). These factors include: (1) the nature
and quality of the contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of the contacts; (3)
the relationship of the cause of action to the contacts; (4) the interest of Missouri in
providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience or inconvenience to the
parties. Id. The first three factors are primary factors, and the remaining two factors
are secondary factors. Id. The third factor distinguishes whether the jurisdiction is
specific or general. Digi-Tel Holdings, Inc. v. Proteq Telecomm., Ltd., 89 F.3d 519,
523 n.4 (8th Cir. 1996). We must look at all of the factors in the aggregate and
examine the totality of the circumstances in making a personal-jurisdiction
determination. Northrup King Co. v. Compania Productora Semillas Algodoneras,
S.A., 51 F.3d 1383, 1388 (8th Cir. 1995).

4
The statutes states, in relevant part:

1. Any person . . . whether or not a citizen or resident of this state
. . . submits . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any
cause of action arising from the doing of any such acts:

(1) The transaction of any business within this state;
(2) The making of any contract within this state;
(3) The commission of a tortious act within this state. . . .

-14-
The minimum contacts necessary for due process may be the basis for either
“general” or “specific” jurisdiction. Davis v. Baylor Univ., 976 S.W.2d 5, 12 (Mo. Ct.
App. 1998). A court obtains general jurisdiction “against a defendant who has
‘continuous and systematic’ contacts with the forum state, even if the injuries at issue
in the lawsuit did not arise out of the defendant’s activities directed at the forum.”
Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1073 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415–16 (1984)).
Specific jurisdiction over a defendant is exercised when a state asserts personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant that “‘has purposefully directed [its]
activities at [Missouri] residents'” in a suit that “‘arises out of’ or ‘relates to’ these
activities.” Lakin v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 348 F.3d 704, 707 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)).

a. General Jurisdiction
Heineman’s contacts with the State of Missouri—which must be found to be
“continuous and systematic” before general jurisdiction is conferred—may be
summarized as follows: She purchased cats in Missouri for delivery to the Johnsons;
personally delivered cats to the Johnsons in Missouri on two separate occasions;
conducted her cat breeding and sale business with the Johnsons, using the Johnsons’
website—operated from the Johnsons’ location in Unionville, Missouri—for a period
of about four years, which ended two years before this lawsuit was initiated; and
engaged in numerous telephone conversations and email exchanges with the Johnsons
during that four-year period.

Heineman is a citizen and resident of Colorado who sells cats and kittens
throughout the United States, and advertises her business on the website
http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com. The Johnsons and Heineman first made contact when
Heineman purchased a cat from the Johnsons in late 2001 or early 2002. Around April
2002, they began a business relationship that lasted until March 2006. During this
time, Heineman provided the Johnsons administrative assistance with their website,

-15-
http://www.CozyKittens.com. She also purchased advertising space for cats she sold from
Colorado on the Johnsons’ website, advertising approximately 50 cats thereon.
Between 2002 and 2006, Heineman purchased about 16 cats for the Johnsons from
breeders throughout the United States. These cats were generally shipped to Colorado,
then eventually shipped to Missouri. Heineman never worked as an employee of the
Johnsons.

Applying the Aftanase factors, see Lakin, 348 F.3d at 711, we do not find
sufficient contacts between Heineman and Missouri to support general jurisdiction.
Heineman did business almost exclusively from her Colorado home, except for
infrequent trips to Missouri to deliver cats. See Johnson, 444 F.3d at 956–57 (holding
that evidence that nonresident party collaborated with a resident and had a publishing
relationship with another did not establish general jurisdiction); see also Helicopteros,
466 U.S. at 418 (“[W]e hold that mere purchases, even if occurring at regular
intervals, are not enough to warrant a State’s assertion of in personam jurisdiction over
a nonresident [party] in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions.”).
Heineman’s contact with Missouri was neither continuous nor systematic.

With the Johnsons unable to establish that Heineman had continuous and
systematic contacts with Missouri, we turn to the question of specific jurisdiction.

b. Specific Jurisdiction
Specific jurisdiction is proper “only if the injury giving rise to the lawsuit
occurred within or had some connection to the forum state, meaning that the defendant
purposely directed its activities at the forum state and the claim arose out of or relates
to those activities.” Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 586 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing
Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 472).

The Johnsons’ primary support for specific jurisdiction are two sets of actions
that Heineman allegedly undertook—posting defamatory statements on

-16-
http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com and using the trademark “Cozy Kittens” on the website
http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com. The trademark claim will be discussed under a Lanham
Act analysis. See infra. The question for both sets of actions is whether Heineman
“purposefully directed” her internet activities at the State of Missouri.

When considering the sufficiency of internet contacts under a specific
jurisdiction analysis, we have found the Zippo test instructive. Lakin, 348 F.3d at
710–11. In Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., the court examined the issue of
whether a website could provide sufficient contacts for specific personal jurisdiction.
952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997). The court created a “sliding scale” to
measure the likelihood of personal jurisdiction. Id. The scale runs from active contract
formation and repeated transmission of computer files to mere posting of information
on a website. Id. The http://www.ComplaintBoards.com site lands on the “mere posting” end
of the scale. Although InMotion represents http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com as an
“interactive” website, users may actually only post information. There is no interaction
between users and a host computer; the site merely makes information available to
other people. The website’s accessibility in Missouri alone is insufficient to confer
personal jurisdiction.

There are other ways the Johnsons can obtain specific jurisdiction, including
employing the Calder effects test. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). “To
sustain [their] argument, [the Johnsons] would have to show that [Heineman] knew
that ‘the brunt of the injury would be felt by [them] in the State in which [they] live
[ ] and work[ ]‘ and intentionally targeted the forum state.” Steinbuch, 518 F.3d at 586
(quoting Calder, 465 U.S. at 789–90).

The “effects” test, therefore, provides that

a defendant’s tortious acts can serve as a source of personal jurisdiction
only where the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the defendant’s acts (1) were intentional, (2) were uniquely or expressly aimed at the forum state, and (3) caused harm, the brunt of which was suffered—and which the defendant knew was likely to be suffered—[in the forum state].

Lindgren v. GDT, LLC, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1132 (S.D. Iowa 2004) (internal quotations and citation omitted). We have stated that this test “allows the assertion of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants whose acts are performed for the very purpose of having their consequences felt in the forum state.” Dakota Indus., Inc.
v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1390–91 (8th Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Heineman’s alleged acts were not so performed.

The Johnsons allege that Heineman stated on http://www.ComplaintBoards.com that “Sue Johnson and Cozy Kittens operated from Unionville, Missouri, where they killed cats, sold infected cats and kittens, brutally killed and tortured unwanted cats andoperated a ‘kitten mill’ in Unionville, Missouri.” Although we accept this allegation as true,5 alone, it fails to show that Heineman uniquely or expressly aimed her statements at Missouri. The statements were aimed at the Johnsons; the inclusion of “Missouri” in the posting was incidental and not “performed for the very purpose of having their consequences” felt in Missouri. There is no evidence that the http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com website specifically targets Missouri, or that the content of Heineman’s alleged postings specifically targeted Missouri.

Additionally, even if the effect of Heineman’s alleged statement was felt in Missouri, we have used the Calder test merely as an additional factor to consider when evaluating a defendant’s relevant contacts with the forum state. In Dakota, we

5
There is no copy of any post from Heineman, defamatory or otherwise, in the record, although at this summary judgment stage we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the Johnsons. Semple v. Federal Exp. Corp., 566 F.3d 788, 791 (8th Cir. 2009).

-18-
declined to grant personal jurisdiction solely on the basis of forum state effects from an intentional tort. Id. at 1391 (“In relying on Calder, we do not abandon the five-part [Aftanase] test . . . . We simply note that Calder requires the consideration of additional factors when an intentional tort is alleged.”). We therefore construe the Calder effects test narrowly, and hold that, absent additional contacts, mere effects inthe forum state are insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. See Hicklin Eng’g, Inc.
v. Aidco, Inc., 959 F.2d 738, 739 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). As explained, supra, there are no additional contacts between Heineman and Missouri to justify conferringpersonal jurisdiction.

Posting on the internet from Colorado an allegedly defamatory statement including the name “Missouri” in its factual assertion does not create the type of substantial connection between Heineman and Missouri necessary to confer specific personal jurisdiction.

c. Lanham Act Claims
The Johnsons also challenge the district court’s denial of jurisdiction for the
Johnsons’ Lanham Act claim. The Johnsons allege that Heineman violated the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.,6 by using the words “Cozy Kittens and Cuddly Cats”
to advertise her cat breeding business on http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com. As noted,
Heineman denies ownership of this website, but for purposes of our review of adismissed count, we assume that Heineman owns the site in question.

Here, we do not decide the viability of the Johnsons’ Lanham Act claim on the merits, only whether the district court had jurisdiction to decide the claim. The

6 The Lanham Act governs the use of federal trademarks. Davis v. Walt Disney Co., 430 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (“The Lanham Act prohibits the use of a mark in connection with goods or services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods or services.”)

-19-
Missouri long-arm statute confers jurisdiction to Missouri courts for torts committed within Missouri. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 506.500.

Infringing upon a trademark, as a tort, may be grounds for personal jurisdiction under Missouri’s long-arm statute. Uncle Sam’s Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Uncle Sam’s Army Navy Outfitters-Manhattan, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 919, 921 (E.D. Mo. 2000).
However, the same “minimum contacts” analysis applies to determine if the allegedly tortious act was committed within Missouri. Id. Heineman, as discussed, does not have sufficient contacts to grant general personal jurisdiction. The Johnsons argue that
Heineman sells cats and kittens throughout the United States, including in the State of Missouri via advertising on http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com, thus creating specific personal jurisdiction. However, under Zippo, whether specific personal jurisdiction could be conferred on the basis of an interactive website depends not just on the nature of the website but also on evidence that individuals in the forum state accessed the website in doing business with the defendant. Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1125–26.
Although http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com may be characterized as interactive, there is no evidence in the record that Heineman engaged in any transaction or exchange of information with a Missouri resident via ww.BoutiqueKittens.com, or that a Missouri resident ever accessed the website. We decline to confer personal jurisdiction based on only the possibility that a Missouri resident had contact with Heineman through http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com.

Similarly, the Johnsons have failed to prove that http://www.BoutiqueKittens.com is uniquely or expressly aimed at Missouri; thus Calder provides no support for their Lanham Act claim. For these reasons, as well as the reasons stated supra, Part II.B.1, we hold that Heineman does not have sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri and affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the Lanham Act claims against Heineman for lack of personal jurisdiction.

-20-
Because we find there was no personal jurisdiction, we do not reach Heineman’s other issues related to service and venue.

2. Melanie Lowry
a. Personal Jurisdiction
The Johnsons also contend that the district court erred by dismissing their claims against Melanie Lowry for lack of personal jurisdiction because the web activities of Lowry were purposefully directed at the citizens of the State of Missouri.
We address this issue with an analysis similar to the one completed above for Heineman.

The only evidence in the record relating to Lowry is an affidavit she attached to her motion to dismiss. In it, Lowry claimed that she has never been to Missouri, does not own any property in Missouri, does not have any bank accounts or telephone listings in Missouri, has never paid taxes in Missouri nor insured a risk in Missouri, and has never knowingly, regularly or continuously transacted business in the State of Missouri. Her affidavit also states that she has never done business with the Johnsons, does not know them, and has only spoken to Susan Johnson one time on the telephone—a call that Johnson initiated. The evidence supporting systematic and continuous contacts between Lowry and Missouri is thus even weaker than that for Heineman. Again applying the Aftanase factors we hold that the district court did not have general jurisdiction over Lowry.

The court also did not have specific jurisdiction over Lowry. Lowry’s alleged activities related to http://www.ComplaintsBoard.com are similar to Heineman’s, except that Lowry did not include any statement related to or mentioning the State of Missouri.
No statement of any kind by Lowry was purposefully directed at Missouri. We affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the Johnsons’ claims against Lowry for lack of personal jurisdiction.

-21-
b. Default Judgment
Finally, the Johnsons argue that the district court abused its discretion or erred by vacating the Missouri state court default judgment against Lowry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Johnsons specifically challenge the district court’s lack of a showing of good cause.

The district court, “for good cause shown,” “set aside” the default judgment against Lowry as part of its order granting Lowry’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Thus, while no findings were made or specific reasons given for setting aside the judgment, it is reasonable to surmise that the district court set aside the default judgment as void because the district court found that Missouri courts
lacked personal jurisdiction over Lowry.

The default judgment was filed on September 22, 2008, and Lowry filed a motion to set aside the judgment on November 12, 2008. Lowry did not reference a rule of civil procedure in her motion, but Lowry is a pro se litigant and therefore we construe her pleadings broadly. See Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 n.7 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding that pro se pleadings are afforded a liberal construction). Because Lowry specifically stated that “this is my motion to set aside the default judgment” and in the same motion argued that the court did not have personal jurisdiction, we will view her motion as a Rule 60(b)(4) motion. See Baldwin v. Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, 516 F.3d 734, 737 (8th Cir. 2008) (characterizing a pro se motion that did not specify a particular rule of civil procedure as a Rule 60(b)(4) motion because the motion stated that the court did not have personal jurisdiction).

“The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause, and it may set aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Rule 60(b)(4) provides in relevant part that “the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment [if] . . . the judgment is void[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). “A judgment is void if the rendering court lacked jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due

-22-
process.” Baldwin, 516 F.3d at 737 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
“Although we have sometimes said that relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy left to the discretion of the district court, relief from a judgment that is void under Rule 60(b)(4) is not discretionary.” United States v. Three Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars, in United States Currency, 463 F.3d 812,
813 (8th Cir. 2006). “Thus, while Rule 60(b) dispositions are generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion . . . an order [granting] relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) is reviewed de novo.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

This is not a case where Lowry lost on the merits, failed to appeal, and belatedly attempted to avoid the judgment with a Rule 60(b)(4) motion. Cf. Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1229 (8th Cir. 1997) (“A party may not use a Rule 60(b)(4) motion as a substitute for a timely appeal. In other words, if a party fails to
appeal an adverse judgment and then files a Rule 60(b)(4) motion after the time permitted for an ordinary appeal has expired, the motion will not succeed merely because the same argument would have succeeded on appeal.”) (internal citations omitted). Rather, Lowry challenged jurisdiction from the inception of this case. The district court found that Lowry could not be subjected to personal jurisdiction in Missouri. Although we reviewed that decision on the merits in this opinion, see supra, Part II.B.2.a, for purposes of review of the district court’s decision to set aside the default judgment, we do not consider the underlying decision; we are confined to determining only whether the district court erred in granting Lowry’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion. See Three Hundred Fifty-Three Thousand six Hundred Dollars, in UnitedStates Currency, 463 F.3d at 814. Because the district court did not err in granting Lowry’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion when it found personal jurisdiction lacking we affirm
the court’s decision to set aside Lowry’s adverse judgment.

III. Conclusion
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.


Accents Of Salado
Posted: 2010-09-28 by terrawest

Quality
Complaint Rating: 100 % with 2 votes
Company information:
Nevada
United States

I had purchased 3 urns for $289.00… It was nothing like the actual picture… The picture looks like the the tops are bronzed like almost fauxed and smooth… Just beautiful was real excited to get them in…What I got was 3 pieces of ceramic that looks as if someone took them in the back alley and spray painted them and forgot to dust them off. I had to put them on top of my kitchen cabinets up far so you could not see all the imperfections and just the poor quality…I was very disappointed… Well one day I had went to the furniture show where they sell wholesale and I actually went into a show room that sells the same exact stuff and found out thats where they order alot of there stuff and all of it was junk… I was amazed this company stays in business. I give them an A plus on the website because everything looks so beautiful but they obviously photo shop those pictures… On top of that the whole sale price was 90 dollars and they sell it for 289.00 that is such a ripoff…

Anyways be careful what you buy because honestly the quality is very poor…


I have read the FAQs and checked for similar issues: YES
My site’s URL (web address) is: http://www.accentsofsalado.com
Description (including timeline of any changes made):

RIP OFF REPORTS and COMPLAINTS BOARD are currently attempting to extort payment from my company to remove negative reviews of my ecommerce business. Complaints Board posted a false complaint on 9-28-2010 about an invented product that I do not sell and used my unique company name along with a state location (Nevada) where my company is not located.

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/accents-of-salado-c377553.html#comment

Google picked up my company name within hours of the posting and ranked this invented complaint #6 out of 4,180 results. Google ranks Rip Off Reports and Complaints Board pages even higher than my Google Blogspot blog. Curiously I received an email this morning 9-29-2010 from a Reactive Online Reputation Management company offering to remove this complaint. The email reads:

Hello,
Good day, hope you are doing well. My name is Janette Adams and I am a Search Engine Reputation Management (SERM) consultant at BrandRevitalize, a leading reputation management company.

I am writing to inform you that your online reputation may be at risk.
While i was doing my daily research concerning your niche, i noticed that your company, together with other companies, has a listing on Ripoffreport.com http://www.ripoffreport.com/specialty-stores/accents-of-salado/accents-of-salado-poor-qualit-699f6.htm

The above negative listing may put your brand equity and customer loyalty you’ve built at risk. Who you are online is as important as who you are offline. Imagine how frustrating it is to build rapport with a potential client, only to lose the deal when they Google your company name—accentsofsalado.com. BrandRevitalize preserves your marketing investments, customer trust and revenues by eliminating potentially fraudulent use of your brand online. Our company makes sure your online reputation is free from false malicious associations and libelous accusations. We make sure CONTROL is delivered back to you, where it belongs.

In line with this, i am hoping we can schedule a time to discuss your Reactive Online Reputation Management and the amount of time needed to eliminate your negative listings in Google’s Search Engine Results Page (SERP). Are you free for a quick discussion today or tomorrow?

Kindly please let me know so we can schedule a call.
You may also visit our processes’ page for more information

http://brandrevitalize.com/our-process.php

Regards,
Janette Adams
BrandRevitalize – Protect. Repair. Reinforce.
8 Maiden Lane, Streetsville,
ONT, Canada L5M 1W8
1-877-878-4108


THIS FRAUDULENT AND LIBELOUS ACTION IS EXTORTION PURE AND SIMPLE.

I have looked at both Rip Off Report and Complaints Board HTML code. There is no reason that the web site HTML Meta Tags and lack of supporting text would propel these two sites to the top 10 Google search results within hours or even at all. My company has received repeated emails and phone calls that have attempted to extort payment for complaint removal services.

MY QUESTIONS:
1. Does Google give ranking preference to these extortionists?
2. Does Google have a special relationship with these complaint web sites?
3. Google has the ability to remove these web sites from their search results. Why has Google not done so?
4. Is there a Google contact email address?

All replies would be greatly appreciated as it is impossible to find Google contact information anywhere on the Google site. It is impossible to report abuse to Google if Google doesn’t provide Google contact information for these serious matters.


Address lookup
canonical name ripoffonline.com.
aliases
addresses 174.120.7.253
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom ripoffonline.com”…

Domain Name: RIPOFFONLINE.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS1629.HOSTGATOR.COM
Name Server: NS1630.HOSTGATOR.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 01-jul-2011
Creation Date: 25-aug-2010
Expiration Date: 25-aug-2012

>>> Last update of whois database: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:10:48 UTC <<<

Queried whois.godaddy.com with “ripoffonline.com”…

Registrant:
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: Go Daddy
Domain Name: RIPOFFONLINE.COM
Created on: 25-Aug-10
Expires on: 25-Aug-12
Last Updated on: 01-Jul-11

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFONLINE.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFONLINE.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1629.HOSTGATOR.COM
NS1630.HOSTGATOR.COM

Network Whois record

Queried rwhois.theplanet.com with “174.120.7.253”…

%rwhois V-1.5:003eff:00 whois.theplanet.com (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.9.5)
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID:NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-16
network:Auth-Area:174.120.0.0/14
network:Network-Name:TPIS-BLK-174-120-7-0
network:IP-Network:174.120.7.224/27
network:IP-Network-Block:174.120.7.224 – 174.120.7.255
network:Organization-Name:WebsiteWelcome
network:Organization-City:Boca Raton
network:Organization-State:FL
network:Organization-Zip:33496
network:Organization-Country:USA
network:Description-Usage:customer
network:Server-Pri:ns1.theplanet.com
network:Server-Sec:ns2.theplanet.com
network:Tech-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Admin-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Created:20090410
network:Updated:20090422

%ok

Queried whois.arin.net with “n 174.120.7.253″…

NetRange: 174.120.0.0 – 174.123.255.255
CIDR: 174.120.0.0/14
OriginAS: AS36420, AS30315, AS13749, AS21844
NetName: NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-16
NetHandle: NET-174-120-0-0-1
Parent: NET-174-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
RegDate: 2009-03-23
Updated: 2009-03-23
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-174-120-0-0-1

OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc.
OrgId: TPCM
Address: 315 Capitol
Address: Suite 205
City: Houston
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 77002
Country: US
RegDate: 1999-08-31
Updated: 2010-10-13
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/TPCM

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.theplanet.com:4321

OrgTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN
OrgTechName: Technical Support
OrgTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800
OrgTechEmail: admins@theplanet.com
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHN33-ARIN

OrgNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN
OrgNOCName: The Planet NOC
OrgNOCPhone: +1-281-822-4204
OrgNOCEmail: noc@theplanet.com
OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/THEPL-ARIN

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: The Planet Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-281-714-3560
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@theplanet.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE271-ARIN

RAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN
RAbuseName: The Planet Abuse
RAbusePhone: +1-281-714-3560
RAbuseEmail: abuse@theplanet.com
RAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE271-ARIN

RNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN
RNOCName: The Planet NOC
RNOCPhone: +1-281-822-4204
RNOCEmail: noc@theplanet.com
RNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/THEPL-ARIN

RTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN
RTechName: Technical Support
RTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800
RTechEmail: admins@theplanet.com
RTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHN33-ARIN

DNS records
name class type data time to live
ripoffonline.com IN TXT v=spf1 ip4:174.120.7.226 a mx include:websitewelcome.com ~all 14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN MX
preference: 0
exchange: ripoffonline.com
14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN SOA
server: ns1629.hostgator.com
email: dnsadmin.gator815.hostgator.com
serial: 2011050802
refresh: 86400
retry: 7200
expire: 3600000
minimum ttl: 86400
86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN NS ns1630.hostgator.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN NS ns1629.hostgator.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN A 174.120.7.253 14400s (04:00:00)
253.7.120.174.in-addr.arpa IN PTR fd.7.78ae.static.theplanet.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)

– end –

Legal Harassment ~ By Sleazeball Attorney Paul Sigelman Representing Colocation America Corp and Albert Ahdoot

Attorney Richard Morse representing Albert A. Ahdoot dba Colocation America Corporation, Colocation America, Inc., Colocation America, Colocation America now Collocation America or Colocation America USA a CAREER SPAMMER send scamFRAUDalert a threaten letter.

Sleazeball Attorney Paul S. Sigelman of Sigelman Law aka SIGELMAN LAW whose’s notoriety for fixing cases has handlers in the Court house to see lawsuits filed by his firm get to the right JUDGES. This sleazeball Attorney continues to file frivolous lawsuit with total disregard for the law and LIE ON APPEAL.
Paul Sigelman is a disgrace to the legal profession and should be disbar.

  1. www.colocationamerica.com
  2. www.collocationamerica.com

Dear scamFRAUDalert,

I’m tied up with an urgent family matter for the rest of the day and tomorrow, so I have neither the time nor the patience to explain this more than once.
Your DDOS attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack) which caused Colocation America, Multacom and Cogent Communications to go down for more than an hour, cost the three companies over $250K in revenue due to their lines being SHUT OFF! You are liable for this. This is in direct violation of your AUP http://colocationamerica.com/aup.htm as clearly stated in your contract. I am being provided receipts from every customer who has to be refunded. You are in breach of your 1 year contract where he owes us the remainder of it. You and scamFRAUDalert.com must immediately stand down in your postings. They must be taken down now.

You need to speak to a criminal attorney immediately to gauge your exposure, I am not your attorney and cannot so advise you. If you and your attorney wish to work out any type of accommodation with me, it can only happen with you immediately ceasing and desisting. You need to provide notice of that within the hour.

THE INDUSTRY PRACTICES is refer to as Standard Level Agreement (SLA) Mr. ALBERT ARASH AHDOOT or Albert A. Ahdoot dba Colocation America aka Colocation America, Inc. aka Colocation America Corporation refer to SLA as Legal Agreement A clue for what you are up against.

Richard Morse
Entertainment Attorney
13935 Tahiti Way Suite 337
Marina Del Rey, CA

  1. Colocation America – Demand Letter
  2. Colocation America – Better Business Complaints Las Vegas
  3. Colocation America Threat Letter – Richard Morse
  4. Legal Document Relating to Colocation America
  5. Letter From Attorney Paul S. Sigelman – Sigelmanlaw.com
  6. Continued Harassment – DMCA Complaint
  7. Attorney Paul Sigelman Letter – PAUL S. SIGELMAN LAW FIRM
  8. Paul Sigelmam Law Firm – Colocation America – 1st Complaint
  9. Paul Sigeglman Law Firm – Colocation Ammerica – 2nd Complaint
  10. Defendant Answer~ 2nd Complaint
  11. Ruling ~ 2nd Complaint
  12. Paul Sigelman Law Firm – Colocaiton America – APPEAL BRIEFING
  13. scamFRAUDalert – Answer APPEAL BRIEF 
  14. Appellant Reply Brief ~  utterly nonsense

ROKSO-200-worst-spammers

(213) 928-6929

Albert Ahdoot aka Albert A. Ahdoot dba Colocation America Corporation/Multacom.com Partner

Albert Ahdoot a/k/a Albert A. Ahdoot of Net Global Marketing now d/b/a Colocation America Corporation/ColocationUSA/Multacom.com, UnitedLayer, Cognet, and other hosting companies reseller of colocation services.

We signed up on 10/29/08 with Mr. Albert Ahdoot aka Albert A. Ahdoot aka Shwan Ahdoot aka Shawn Jacobs aka sjacobs26 aka   Michael Trunkett aka Brian Breenspan aka David Stein aka Amy Goldstein former owner of Net Global Marketing now dba Colocation America, Inc dba Colocation America Corporation dba ColocationUSA a reseller of Colocation service and a Multacom Partner or Affiliate. I had no knowledge of Mr. Ahdoot past business practices or who he is. Mr. Ahdoot sounded trustworthy and someone you can do business with.

To my surprised, my hosting experienced has been a total disaster. Mr. Ahdoot service contract is tailor to protect his interest whereby you as a customer have no recourse.

Between January 27 – 30, 2009 we experienced massive DDoS attacks as we normally do. On 01/30/09 Mr. Ahdoot informed me that he had null routed (turned off server that hosted my website – ScamFraudAlert.com because of the DDoS attacks.

On 2/1/09, I asked Mr. Ahdoot how soon can I expect to have site back up and running. Mr Ahdoot then informed me he had no idea. At this point I requested contract terminated and that I move site to a new host. This is where my nightmare begun.

Mr. Ahdoot requested that I purchased the server he (Colocation America Corporation – http://www.colocationAmerica) leased me.  He also requested that I pay for February 2009 service. Upon fulfilling those requests, Mr. Ahdoot requested that I signed a release ‘Stating That I Will Not Bad Mouth’ his company Colocation America.

In my attempts to retrieve my database (DB), I agreed and signed a release indicating that I signed the release under duress or coercion. Mr. Ahdoot then informed me that the ‘RELEASE’ faxed over was not acceptable and I needed to sign one prepared by his Attorney. I refused and my ‘Database’ or ‘Server’ I’ve since purchased have been confiscated.

I believe Multacom.com Corporation should hold their business partners to a higher ethical standards so as to avoid such incidents. Based on my researched of Mr. Ahdoot past business practices, it appears like his version of events involving disputes are always different from what actually happened.

albertahdoot5

When dealing or conducting business with Mr. Albert Ahdoot dba Colocation America, Inc. www.coloctionamerica.com and his related businesses or data centers, please exercise CAUTION AND CARE  as Mr. Ahdoot is not a man of his word.

Mr. Ahdoot and his company Colocation America Corp. have a REPUTATION OF BEING SUED and MANUFACTURING LAWSUITS against OTHERS by his Attorney Paul S. Sigelman The Self-Anointed Perry Mason Defense Attorney of Paul S. Sigelman Law Firm or sigelmanlaw.com of Beverly Hills.

Colocation America is a register Nevada Corporation which had no physical location and a drop mail address in the State of  Nevada and have since hired a  transfer agent in the State of California (Los Angeles County) its principal place of business. [They have since listed with the Secretary of State California]

ScamFraudAlert.com
California
U.S.A.

  • colocation america albert Ahdoot
  • colocation america hosting reviews
  • colocation america uptime
  • colocation america web hosting
  • colocation america corporation
  • colocation america inc
  • data centers colocation america
  • carrier neutral colocation america
  • colocation hosting
  • colocation america albert
  • holiday travel of america

Lawsuits

bbb-las-vegas24

Contact Email for Albert Ahdoot:
www.ColocationAmerica.com

Albert@colocationamerica.com
Sales@ColocationAmerica.com

Contact Information
shawn@colocationamerica.com
Shiva@ColocationAmerica.com
Company: Colocation America
Email: pr@colocationamerica.com
Website: http://www.colocationamerica.com

______________________________

1-818-881-2612
1-310-717-9137
(310)717-9137
1-800-296-8915
(800)296-8915
1-213-928-6929
(213)928-6929
1-800-296-8915
1-415-349-2100
(415)349-2133
1-206-984-1344
(206)984-1344
1-888-505-3656
(888)505-3656
1-888-505-COLO
(888)505-COLO

Los Angeles CA Address
Colocation America aka Colocation America Corporation
Level3Colocation.com
530 W. 6th St. Suite 903 (HQ)
Los Angeles, CA 90014

AS21769 COLOAM – Data Center Map

Colocation America San Fernando Valley, CA Address
6828 Valjean Avenue
Van Nuys California 91406
U.S.A.

  • Colocation America – San Francisco, CA (California) | 800-296-8915
  • Colocation America – Data Center in Los Angeles, CA 90017 – (800)296-8915
  • Colocation Data Center in MT Prospect, IL 60056 – (800) 296-8915
  • New Jersey Server Colocation in Clifton – (800) 296-8915
  • Colocation Data Center in Mount Prospect, IL 60056 – (800) 296-8915
  • Colocation America in Los Angeles, CA – (800) 296-8915

Los Angeles Data Centers:

  1. Aon Center : 707 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017
  2. One Wilshire: 624 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90017
  3. Digital Realty Trust: 600 W. 7th St. Los Angeles, CA 90017
  4. Quinby Building: 650 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90017
  5. Telecom Center: 530 W. 6th St. Los Angeles, CA 90014

San Francisco Data Centers:

  1. 200 Paul Exchange: 200 Paul St. San Francisco, CA 94110
  2. New York Data Centers:
  3. 60 Hudson Building: 60 Hudson Ave. New York, NY 10013
  4. New Jersey Data Centers
  5. 100 Delawanna Buiding:100 Delawanna Ave. Clifton, NJ 07014

Chicago Data Centers

  1. 350 E Cermak Rd. Chicago, IL 60616
  2. 701 S Lasalle St. Chicago, IL 60605
  3. 725 S Wells St. Chicago, IL 60607
  4. 427 S Lasalle St. Chicago, IL 60605
  5. 717 S Wells St. Chicago, IL 60607
  6. 601 W Polk St. Chicago, IL 60607
  7. 600 W Chicago Ave Chicago, IL 60654
  8. 1331 E Business Center Dr. Mt Prospect, IL 60056
  9. 800 E. Business Center Dr. Mt. Prospect, IL 60056
  10. 1850 Springer Dr. Lombard, IL 60148
  11. 1808 Swift Dr. Oakbrook, IL 60523
  12. 360 E 22nd St. Lombard, IL 60148
  13. 2425 Busse Rd. Arlington Heights, IL 60005
  14. 1905 Lunt Ave. Elk Grove Village, IL 60007

WhoIs Colocation America – colocationamerica.com

The WhoIs registar does not provide the PUBLIC with the name of the owner. The physical address listed is a mail drop in Las Vegas, NV. The trademark application filed November 26, 2007 list Albert Ahdoot as CEO

Colocation America is own and operated by Albert Ahdoot who at one time operated Net Global Marketing  a firm accused of running a SPAM operation by Earthlink. According to his Attorney Paul S. Sigelman of Sigelman Law or Paul Sigelman Law Firm, Albert Ahdoot is not the owner filed with Godaddy, the domain registar. He has since admitted that Albert Ahdoot is the Owner.

Our hosting experienced with this firm/individual was nothing more than a complete disaster. Two bogus lawsuits were filed to SILENT ScamFraudAlert from sharing their hosting experienced with the GENERAL PUBLIC.

From what we have learned, Albert Ahdoot also goes by Albert A. Ahdoot is the Founder/CEO/OWNER of Colocation America Corporation. A registered Nevada Corporation with it’s primary place of business  downtown Los Angeles, CA data centers.

Mr. Ahdoot is a RESELLER of Colocation services as he rents and lease rack space from Digital Realty Trust, Multacom.com, UnitedLayer, Above.com, Cogent Communication, Level 3 Communications and other ISP providers across continental USA and resells colocation spaces.

Legal Threats  – Letters

Mr. Ahdoot and his Attorney actively seek to have remove any negative comments posted   about Mr. Albert Ahdoot business practices and his company Colocation America Corporation online from ever appearing either through the legal process – The Courts or by other means such as spamming and issuing bogus daily press releases.
What we’ve observed so far is Albert A. Ahdoot dba Colocation America Corporation dba Colocation America, Inc. dba ColocationUSA, dba Los Colocation America dba Colocation America, Colocation America Facebook, ColocationUSA Twitter, datacenterandcolocation, colocationAmerica – la.bbb.org  is spamming  search engines such as google so as to limit negative comments posted online about Colocation America and Mr. Ahdoot from appearing on page one of searches.


Address lookup
canonical name  Colocationamerica.com

aliases
addresses 67.203.25.149
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom colocationamerica.com”…

Domain Name: COLOCATIONAMERICA.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS1.26DNS.COM
Name Server: NS2.26DNS.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 12-jul-2010
Creation Date: 29-mar-2005
Expiration Date: 10-oct-2012

Last update of whois database: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 01:29:54 UTC
Queried whois.godaddy.com with “colocationamerica.com”…

Registrant:
Colocation
9360 W. Flamingo Rd.
Suite 110-178
Las Vegas, Nevada 89147
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: COLOCATIONAMERICA.COM
Created on: 29-Mar-05  <======
Expires on: 10-Oct-12
Last Updated on: 12-Jul-10

Administrative Contact:
America, Colocation Support@ColocationAmerica.com
Colocation
9360 W. Flamingo Rd.
Suite 110-178
Las Vegas, Nevada 89147
United States
+1(800)296-8915 Fax –

Technical Contact:
America, Colocation Support@ColocationAmerica.com
Colocation
9360 W. Flamingo Rd.
Suite 110-178
Las Vegas, Nevada 89147
United States
+1.800-296-8915 Fax –

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.26DNS.COM
NS2.26DNS.COM
Network Whois record

Queried whois.arin.net with “n ! NET-67-203-25-144-1″…

NetRange: 67.203.25.144 – 67.203.25.159
CIDR: 67.203.25.144/28
OriginAS: AS21769
NetName: RECREATIVE
NetHandle: NET-67-203-25-144-1
Parent: NET-67-203-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
RegDate: 2009-01-12
Updated: 2009-01-12
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-67-203-25-144-1

CustName: Recreative Co.
Address: 5441 North East River Road
Address: Suite # 1002
City: Chicago
StateProv: IL
PostalCode: 60656
Country: US
RegDate: 2009-01-12
Updated: 2011-03-19
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/customer/C02130283

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE1755-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse Department
OrgAbusePhone: +1-800-296-8915
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@colocationamerica.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE1755-ARIN

OrgTechHandle: NOC1792-ARIN
OrgTechName: Network Operations Center
OrgTechPhone: +1-800-296-8915
OrgTechEmail: noc@colocationamerica.com
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC1792-ARIN

OrgNOCHandle: NOC1792-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Network Operations Center
OrgNOCPhone: +1-800-296-8915
OrgNOCEmail: noc@colocationamerica.com
OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC1792-ARIN

RAbuseHandle: NOC1792-ARIN
RAbuseName: Network Operations Center
RAbusePhone: +1-800-296-8915
RAbuseEmail: noc@colocationamerica.com
RAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC1792-ARIN

RTechHandle: NOC1792-ARIN
RTechName: Network Operations Center
RTechPhone: +1-800-296-8915
RTechEmail: noc@colocationamerica.com
RTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC1792-ARIN

RNOCHandle: NOC1792-ARIN
RNOCName: Network Operations Center
RNOCPhone: +1-800-296-8915
RNOCEmail: noc@colocationamerica.com
RNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC1792-ARIN
DNS records

name class type data time to live
colocationamerica.com IN MX
preference: 10
exchange: mail.colocationamerica.com
600s (00:10:00)
colocationamerica.com IN TXT v=spf1 ip4:208.70.253.18 208.70.252.22 67.203.25.146 67.203.25.148 67.203.25.149 a mx ip4:208.70.248.18 ~all 600s (00:10:00)
colocationamerica.com IN A 67.203.25.149 600s (00:10:00)
colocationamerica.com IN SOA
server: ns1.26dns.com
email: corp.multacom.com
serial: 2011050706
refresh: 7200
retry: 3600
expire: 1209600
minimum ttl: 600
600s (00:10:00)
colocationamerica.com IN NS ns2.26dns.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
colocationamerica.com IN NS ns1.26dns.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
149.25.203.67.in-addr.arpa IN PTR hosted.by.colocationamerica.com 3600s (01:00:00)
— end –

Read More – ScamFraudAlert-Blog


colocation america albert Ahdoot
colocation america hosting reviews
colocation america uptime
colocation america web hosting
colocation america corporation
colocation america inc
data centers colocation america
carrier neutral colocation america
colocation hosting
colocation america albert
holiday travel of america

WhoIs scaminformer.com aka complaintsboard.com

Complaintsboard Engages in Cybersquating

  • Complaintsboard is a Corrupt Bogus Consumer complaint and Scam Fighting Site Whose Operators Are Unknown
  • It is a widespread believe amongst scam fighting sites that the Operators of Complaintsboard.COM are partly owners of several Canadian Pharmacy Websites

SOME COMPLAINTS POSTED ON HTTP://COMPLAINTSBOARD.COM ARE MANUFACTURED AND POSTED DAILY BY COMMERCIAL POSTERS

    1. google pub ID -7643816519439245
    2. ca-pub-3499251668624688

The operators of complaintsboard.com have engaged in a massive program of STEALING/DUPLICATIING COMPETITOR’S sites. They have created sites that mirrors other consumer complaints and scam fighting sites with the sole purpose of

  1. Stealing Traffic.
  2. Putting the competitor out of business.
  3. Discreating the other site work.
  4. Lawsuits – Ripoff Report.com

COMMERCIAL POSTERS
Anyone can easily find freelancer posters and service firms from the US, India, Australia, Russia, Romania, Ukraine, UK, Philippine, Moldova and other countries.
These commercial freelancer posters are responsible for most comments you will find on the escalating consumer complaint FORUMS and BLOGS now populating the internet.

Address lookup
canonical name ripoffreport.cc
aliases http://www.ripoffreport.cc
addresses 72.52.210.60
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.nic.cc with “dom ripoffreport.cc

Domain Name: WWW.RIPOFFREPORT.CC
Registrar: WILD WEST DOMAINS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.wildwestdomains.com
Referral URL: http://www.wildwestdomains.com


Name Server: NS1.WEBHOSTING4INDIA.COM
Name Server: NS2.WEBHOSTING4INDIA.COM
Status: CLIENT-RENEW-PROHIBITED
Status: CLIENT-XFER-PROHIBITED
Status: CLIENT-UPDATE-PROHIBITED
Status: CLIENT-DELETE-PROHIBITED
Updated Date: 01-aug-2010
Creation Date: 18-jun-2009
Expiration Date: 18-jun-2011

Last update of whois database: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 08:02:37 EST
Queried whois.wildwestdomains.com with “ripoffreport.cc”…

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: RIPOFFREPORT.CC
Created on: 18-Jun-09
Expires on: 18-Jun-11
Last Updated on: 01-Aug-10

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFREPORT.CC@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFREPORT.CC@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.WEBHOSTING4INDIA.COM
NS2.WEBHOSTING4INDIA.COM
Network Whois record

Queried rwhois.liquidweb.com with “72.52.210.60”…

whois V-1.5:003eff:00 rwhois.liquidweb.com (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.7.4)
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID:NETBLK-SOURCEDNS.72.52.128.0/17
network:Auth-Area:72.52.128.0/17
network:Network-Name:SOURCEDNS-72.52.128.0
network:IP-Network:72.52.128.0/17
network:IP-Network-Block:72.52.128.0 – 72.52.171.255
network:Organization;I:SOURCEDNS
network:Org-Name:SourceDNS
network:Street-Address:4210 Creyts Rd.
network:City:Lansing
network:State:MI
network:Postal-Code:48917
network:Country-Code:US
network:Tech-Contact;I:admin@sourcedns.com
network:Created:20040212
network:Updated:20060327
network:Updated-By:admin@sourcedns.com
network:Abuse:abuse@sourcedns.com

ok
Queried whois.arin.net with “n 72.52.210.60″…

NetRange: 72.52.128.0 – 72.52.255.255
CIDR: 72.52.128.0/17
OriginAS:
NetName: LIQUIDWEB-6
NetHandle: NET-72-52-128-0-1
Parent: NET-72-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS.LIQUIDWEB.COM
NameServer: NS1.LIQUIDWEB.COM
RegDate: 2006-08-03
Updated: 2007-03-26
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-72-52-128-0-1

OrgName: Liquid Web, Inc.
OrgId: LQWB
Address: 4210 Creyts Rd.
City: Lansing
StateProv: MI
PostalCode: 48917
Country: US
RegDate: 2001-07-20
Updated: 2008-12-19
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/LQWB

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.liquidweb.com:4321

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE551-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-800-580-4985
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@liquidweb.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE551-ARIN

OrgTechHandle: IPADM47-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP Administrator
OrgTechPhone: +1-800-580-4985
OrgTechEmail: ipadmin@liquidweb.com
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/IPADM47-ARIN
DNS records

name class type data time to live
http://www.ripoffreport.cc IN CNAME ripoffreport.cc 14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffreport.cc IN MX
preference: 0
exchange: ripoffreport.cc
14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffreport.cc IN SOA
server: ns1.webhosting4india.com
email: chirs.roberts.gmail.com
serial: 2010080400
refresh: 86400
retry: 7200
expire: 3600000
minimum ttl: 86400
86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffreport.cc IN NS ns2.webhosting4india.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffreport.cc IN NS ns1.webhosting4india.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffreport.cc IN A 72.52.210.60 14400s (04:00:00)
60.210.52.72.in-addr.arpa IN PTR host.webhosting4india.com 300s (00:05:00)
— end –



Address lookup
canonical name ripoffonline.com.
aliases
addresses 174.120.7.253
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom ripoffonline.com”…

Domain Name: RIPOFFONLINE.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS1629.HOSTGATOR.COM
Name Server: NS1630.HOSTGATOR.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 01-jul-2011
Creation Date: 25-aug-2010
Expiration Date: 25-aug-2012

>>> Last update of whois database: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:10:48 UTC <<<

Queried whois.godaddy.com with “ripoffonline.com”…

Registrant:
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: Go Daddy
Domain Name: RIPOFFONLINE.COM
Created on: 25-Aug-10
Expires on: 25-Aug-12
Last Updated on: 01-Jul-11

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFONLINE.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration RIPOFFONLINE.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax — (480) 624-2598

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1629.HOSTGATOR.COM
NS1630.HOSTGATOR.COM

Network Whois record

Queried rwhois.theplanet.com with “174.120.7.253”…

%rwhois V-1.5:003eff:00 whois.theplanet.com (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.9.5)
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID:NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-16
network:Auth-Area:174.120.0.0/14
network:Network-Name:TPIS-BLK-174-120-7-0
network:IP-Network:174.120.7.224/27
network:IP-Network-Block:174.120.7.224 – 174.120.7.255
network:Organization-Name:WebsiteWelcome
network:Organization-City:Boca Raton
network:Organization-State:FL
network:Organization-Zip:33496
network:Organization-Country:USA
network:Description-Usage:customer
network:Server-Pri:ns1.theplanet.com
network:Server-Sec:ns2.theplanet.com
network:Tech-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Admin-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Created:20090410
network:Updated:20090422

%ok

Queried whois.arin.net with “n 174.120.7.253″…

NetRange: 174.120.0.0 – 174.123.255.255
CIDR: 174.120.0.0/14
OriginAS: AS36420, AS30315, AS13749, AS21844
NetName: NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-16
NetHandle: NET-174-120-0-0-1
Parent: NET-174-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
RegDate: 2009-03-23
Updated: 2009-03-23
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-174-120-0-0-1

OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc.
OrgId: TPCM
Address: 315 Capitol
Address: Suite 205
City: Houston
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 77002
Country: US
RegDate: 1999-08-31
Updated: 2010-10-13
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/TPCM

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.theplanet.com:4321

OrgTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN
OrgTechName: Technical Support
OrgTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800
OrgTechEmail: admins@theplanet.com
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHN33-ARIN

OrgNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN
OrgNOCName: The Planet NOC
OrgNOCPhone: +1-281-822-4204
OrgNOCEmail: noc@theplanet.com
OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/THEPL-ARIN

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: The Planet Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-281-714-3560
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@theplanet.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE271-ARIN

RAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN
RAbuseName: The Planet Abuse
RAbusePhone: +1-281-714-3560
RAbuseEmail: abuse@theplanet.com
RAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE271-ARIN

RNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN
RNOCName: The Planet NOC
RNOCPhone: +1-281-822-4204
RNOCEmail: noc@theplanet.com
RNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/THEPL-ARIN

RTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN
RTechName: Technical Support
RTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800
RTechEmail: admins@theplanet.com
RTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHN33-ARIN

DNS records
name class type data time to live
ripoffonline.com IN TXT v=spf1 ip4:174.120.7.226 a mx include:websitewelcome.com ~all 14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN MX
preference: 0
exchange: ripoffonline.com
14400s (04:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN SOA
server: ns1629.hostgator.com
email: dnsadmin.gator815.hostgator.com
serial: 2011050802
refresh: 86400
retry: 7200
expire: 3600000
minimum ttl: 86400
86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN NS ns1630.hostgator.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN NS ns1629.hostgator.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
ripoffonline.com IN A 174.120.7.253 14400s (04:00:00)
253.7.120.174.in-addr.arpa IN PTR fd.7.78ae.static.theplanet.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)

– end –

WhoIs Merareview.com aka Complaintsboard.com aka WhoIs WhoMark.com

Complaintsboard is a Corrupt Bogus Consumer Advocacy and ScamFighting Site Whose Operators Are Unknown
Complaintsboard Manufactures Some Consumer Complaints


Merareview.com aka complaintsboard.com aka ScamFound.com are owned 
and operated by the same group that operates BOGUS Canadian Online pharmacies

Complaintsboard.com contact gmail address: AutumCameron
Adsense Group Site Lookup for pub-7643816519439245

Publisher Id: pub-7643816519439245

Domains associated with this Google Adsense Id

LAWSUIT – Ripoffreport vs Complaintsboard.com

Do you know another site for this pub-id? Give us the Url.

 


Results returned from whois.publicdomainregistry.com:
Registration Service Provided By: TI NET
Contact: +46.762895545
Domain Name: WHOISMARK.COM
Registrant: PrivacyProtect.org
Domain Admin contact@privacyprotect.org P.O. Box 97
Note -
All Postal Mails Rejected, visit
Privacyprotect.org
Moergestel null,5066 ZH NL
Tel. +45.36946676
Creation Date: 03-Mar-2009
Expiration Date: 03-Mar-2013
Domain servers in listed order:
ns2.whoismark.com
ns1.whoismark.com

Administrative Contact: PrivacyProtect.org
Domain Admin contact@privacyprotect.org
P.O. Box 97 Note – All Postal Mails Rejected, visit Privacyprotect.org
Moergestel null,5066 ZH NL
Tel. +45.36946676
Technical Contact: PrivacyProtect.org
Domain Admin contact@privacyprotect.org
P.O. Box 97 Note – All Postal Mails Rejected, visit Privacyprotect.org
Moergestel null,5066 ZH NL
Tel. +45.36946676

Billing Contact: PrivacyProtect.org
Domain Admin contact@privacyprotect.org
P.O. Box 97
Note – All Postal Mails Rejected, visit
Privacyprotect.org
Moergestel null,5066 ZH NL
Tel. +45.36946676
Status:LOCKED

Network IP address lookup:Whois query for 174.142.161.125
The following results may also be obtained via: # http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=174.142.161.125
howDetails=true&showARIN=false iWeb Technologies Inc.
WEB-BLK-06 (NET-174-142-0-0-1) 174.142.0.0 – 174.142.255.255 Tony Tinet IWEB-CL-T015-221CL-304 (NET-174-142-161-120-1)
174.142.161.120 – 174.142.161.127
NetRange: 174.142.161.120 – 174.142.161.127
CIDR: 174.142.161.120/29
Origin AS: NetName: IWEB-CL-T015-221CL-304
NetHandle: NET-174-142-161-120-1
Parent: NET-174-142-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned Reg Date: 2010-04-16
Updated: 2010-05-14 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-174-142-161-120-1
Cust Name: Tony Tinet
Address: Vasagatan 10
City: Stockholm
State Prov:
Postal Code: 10123
Country: SE RegDate: 2010-04-16
Updated: 2010-05-14 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/customer/C02466329
OrgTechHandle: NETWO2356-ARIN
OrgTechName: Network Administrator
OrgTechPhone: +1-514-286-4242 OrgTechEmail: net-admin@noc.privatedns.com OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NETWO2356-ARIN
OrgNOCHandle: NETWO2356-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Network Administrator
OrgNOCPhone: +1-514-286-4242 OrgNOCEmail: net-admin@noc.privatedns.com OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NETWO2356-ARIN
OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE1906-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse Coordinator
OrgAbusePhone: +1-514-286-4242 OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@noc.privatedns.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE1906-ARIN
IP address: 208.86.185.176
Host name: http://www.merareview.com
Alias: merareview.com
http://www.merareview.com 208.86.185.176 is from
United States(US) in region North America
TraceRoute to 208.86.185.176 [www.merareview.com]
Hop (ms) (ms) (ms) IP Address Host name
1 48 35 16 72.249.128.109 -
2 29 33 27 8.9.232.73 xe-5-3-0.edge3.dallas1.level3.net
3 19 20 17 4.69.145.244 ae-93-90.ebr3.dallas1.level3.net
4 41 36 44 4.69.134.22 ae-7-7.ebr3.atlanta2.level3.net
5 41 48 41 4.69.132.86 ae-2-2.ebr1.washington1.level3.net
6 50 55 45 4.69.132.86 ae-2-2.ebr1.washington1.level3.net
7 55 55 53 4.69.134.138 ae-81-81.csw3.washington1.level3.net
8 45 55 51 4.69.132.177 ae-6-6.car2.raleigh1.level3.net
9 70 50 49 4.69.132.177 ae-6-6.car2.raleigh1.level3.net
10 50 55 71 199.204.252.18 -
11 57 66 58 208.73.34.34 vzr1-32.hostican.com
12 51 66 66 208.86.185.176 vzr2-36.hostican.com
Trace completeRetrieving DNS records for www.merareview.com
DNS servers
ns2.merareview.com [208.86.185.176]
ns1.merareview.com [208.86.185.170Answer recordsmerareview.com MXpreference: 0
exchange: merareview.com
14400s
merareview.com TXT v=spf1 ip4:208.86.185.170 include:hostican.com ~all 14400s
merareview.com SOA
server: ns1.merareview.com
email: dnsadmin@server.merareview.com
serial: 2010070800
refresh: 3600
retry: 120
expire: 1209600
minimum ttl: 3600
3600s
merareview.com NS ns1.merareview.com 86400s
merareview.com NS ns2.merareview.com 86400s
merareview.com A 208.86.185.176 14400sAuthority recordsAdditional recordsmerareview.com A 208.86.185.176 14400s
ns1.merareview.com A 208.86.185.170 14400s
ns2.merareview.com A 208.86.185.176 14400sWhois query for merareview.comResults returned from whois.internic.net:
Domain Name: WWW.MERAREVIEW.COM
Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.enom.com
Referral URL: http://www.enom.com
Name Server: NS1.MERAREVIEW.COM
Name Server: NS2.MERAREVIEW.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 07-jul-2010
Creation Date: 20-feb-2008
Expiration Date: 20-feb-2011Last update of whois database: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:37:16 UTCResults returned from whois.enom.com:
Domain name: http://www.merareview.com
Registrant Contact:
WhoisGuard
WhoisGuard Protected
Fax:
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 – 732
Westchester, CA 90045
USAdministrative Contact:
WhoisGuard
WhoisGuard Protected 1aa5ccabdd754c0a8cc18106f9e17d22.protect@whoisguard.com
+1.6613102107
Fax: +1.6613102107
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 – 732
Westchester, CA 90045
USTechnical Contact:
WhoisGuard
WhoisGuard Protected 1aa5ccabdd754c0a8cc18106f9e17d22.protect@whoisguard.com
+1.661-310-2107
Fax: +1.6613102107
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #110 – 732
Westchester, CA 90045
USStatus: LockedName Servers:
ns1.merareview.com
ns2.merareview.comCreation date: 20 Feb 2008 08:33:46
Expiration date: 20 Feb 2011 08:33:46Get Noticed on the Internet! Increase visibility for this domain name by listing it at http://www.whoisbusinesslistings.comNetwork IP address lookup:
Whois query for 208.86.185.176http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=208.86.185.176?showDetails=true&showARIN=falseNetRange: 208.86.184.0 – 208.86.191.255
CIDR: 208.86.184.0/21
OriginAS: AS19730
NetName: HOSTICAN-NETWORK
NetHandle: NET-208-86-184-0-1
Parent: NET-208-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.HOSTICAN.COM
NameServer: NS2.HOSTICAN.COM
RegDate: 2008-01-28
Updated: 2008-12-19Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-208-86-184-0-1OrgName: HostICan
OrgId: HOSTI-15
Address: 9700 Atlee Commons Drive
City: Ashland
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 23005
Country: US
RegDate: 2006-11-21
Updated: 2010-05-18
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/HOSTI-15OrgTechHandle: LYTTL-ARIN
OrgTechName: Lyttle, Chuck
OrgTechPhone: +1-804-955-1180
OrgTechEmail: netops@hostican.com
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/LYTTL-ARINOrgNOCHandle: NETWO2859-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Network Operations
OrgNOCPhone: +1-804-955-1180
OrgNOCEmail: netops@hostican.com
OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NETWO2859-ARINOrgAbuseHandle: NOC3436-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Network Operations Center
OrgAbusePhone: +1-804-955-1180
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@hostican.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC3436-ARINRTechHandle: TECHN755-ARIN
RTechName: Technical Operations
RTechPhone: +1-804-955-1180
RTechEmail: support@hostican.com
RTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHN755-ARIN P address: 174.123.96.170

Host name: www.complaintsboard.com

Alias: www.complaintsboard.com174.123.96.170 is from United States(US) in region North AmericaTraceRoute to 174.123.96.170 [www.complaintsboard.com]Hop (ms) (ms) (ms)

IP Address Host name 1 51 96 60 72.249.0.65 – 2 11 46 84 206.123.64.82 – 3 55 88 53 216.52.189.9 border4.te4-4.colo4dallas-5.ext1.dal.pnap.net 4 26 9 6 216.52.191.33 core2.tge5-1-bbnet1.ext1.dal.pnap.net 5 15 10 7 157.238.224.182 xe-0-5-0-4.r07.dllstx09.us.ce.gin.ntt.net 6 13 12 9 157.238.224.182 xe-0-5-0-4.r07.dllstx09.us.ce.gin.ntt.net 7 23 24 27 70.87.253.50 et1-1.ibr01.hstntx2.theplanet.com 8 16 23 23 74.55.252.34 2-2.dsr01.hstntx2.theplanet.com 9 14 13 15 74.55.252.54 po1.car17.hstntx2.theplanet.com 10 13 19 25 174.123.96.170 complaintsboard.com

Trace complete Retrieving DNS records for http://www.complaintsboard.com…; DNS servers ns1.theplanet.com ns2.theplanet.com

Answer records http://www.complaintsboard.com A 174.123.96.170 86400s Authority records complaintsboard.com

NS ns2.theplanet.com 86400s complaintsboard.com
NS ns1.theplanet.com 86400s Additional records ns1.theplanet.com
A 207.218.247.135 300s ns2.theplanet.com A 207.218.223.162 300s
Whois query for complaintsboard.com
Domain Name: COMPLAINTSBOARD.COM

Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.enom.com
Referral URL: http://www.enom.com
Name Server: NS1.THEPLANET.COM
Name Server: NS2.THEPLANET.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 15-jul-2010
Creation Date: 22-jun-2006
Expiration Date: 22-jun-2012

Last update of whois database: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:40:05
UTC Results returned from whois.enom.com =-=-=-=
Registration Service Provided By: WebServe Canada Contact: admin@webserve.ca
Domain name: www.complaintsboard.com
Registrant Contact: Mediolex Ltd.
Mediolex Ltd. ()
Fax: Hipokrata 45-49
Riga, NO LV-1079 LV

Administrative Contact: Mediolex Ltd.
Mediolex Ltd.
editor.complaintsboard@gmail.com
Phonr+1.240-764-4863
Fax:
Hipokrata 45-49 Riga,
NO LV-1079 LV
Technical Contact: Mediolex Ltd.
Mediolex Ltd. editor.complaintsboard@gmail.com
+1.2407644863
Fax:
Hipokrata 45-49
Riga,NO LV-1079 LV
Status: Locked

Name Servers: ns1.theplanet.com
ns2.theplanet.com
Creation date: 22 Jun 2006 12:11:00 Expiration date: 22 Jun 2012 12:11:00

Network IP address lookup:

Whois query for 174.123.96.170 Results returned from whois.arin.net:

The following results may also be obtained via: http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=174.123.96.170?showDetails=true&showARIN=false NetRange: 174.120.0.0 – 174.123.255.255 CIDR: 174.120.0.0/14 OriginAS: AS36420, AS30315, AS13749, AS21844

NetName: NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-16 NetHandle:

NET-174-120-0-0-1 Parent: NET-174-0-0-0-0

NetType: Direct Allocation

NameServer:

NS2.THEPLANET.COM

NameServer: NS1.THEPLANET.COM

RegDate: 2009-03-23 Updated: 2009-03-23

Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-174-120-0-0-1

OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc.

OrgId: TPCM

Address: 315 Capitol Address: Suite 205

City: Houston State

Prov: TX PostalCode: 77002

Country: US

RegDate: 1999-08-31

Updated: 2008-05-20

Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/TPCM

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.theplanet.com:4321

OrgTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN

OrgTechName: Technical Support

OrgTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800

OrgTechEmail: admins@theplanet.com

OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHN33-ARIN OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN

OrgAbuseName: The Planet Abuse

OrgAbusePhone: +1-281-714-3560

OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@theplanet.com

OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE271-ARIN OrgNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN

OrgNOCName: The Planet NOC

OrgNOCPhone: +1-281-822-4204

OrgNOCEmail: noc@theplanet.com

OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/THEPL-ARIN RTechHandle: TECHN33-ARIN

RTechName:Technical Support

RTechPhone: +1-214-782-7800

RTechEmail: admins@theplanet.com

RTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/TECHN33-ARIN

RNOCHandle: THEPL-ARIN RNOC

Name: The Planet NOC RNOC Phone: +1-281-822-4204

RNOCEmail: noc@theplanet.com

RNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/THEPL-ARIN

RAbuseHandle: ABUSE271-ARIN

RAbuseName: The Planet Abuse

RAbuse Email: abuse@theplanet.com

RAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE271-ARIN # ARIN

WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use # available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html

1 ae-62-60.ebr2.dallas1.level3.net
4 48 46 11 4.69.145.51 ae-62-60.ebr2.dallas1.level3.net
5 42 48 48 4.69.141.5 ae-5-5.car1.montreal2.level3.net
6 51 49 61 4.59.176.10 te6-2.cl-core05.level3.mtl.iweb.com
7 54 58 69 4.59.176.10 te6-2.cl-core05.level3.mtl.iweb.com
8 54 59 49 174.142.161.125 -

Trace complete

Retrieving DNS records for www.whoismark.com

DNS servers

ns1.whoismark.com [174.142.161.124]

ns2.whoismark.com [174.142.161.126]

Answer records
whoismark.com TXT v=spf1 a mx ip4:64.15.155.211 ?all 14400s
whoismark.com MX
preference: 0
exchange: whoismark.com
14400s
whoismark.com SOA
server: ns1.whoismark.com
email: info@whoismark.com
serial: 2010062005
refresh: 86400
retry: 7200
expire: 3600000
minimum ttl: 86400
86400s
whoismark.com NS ns2.whoismark.com 86400s
whoismark.com NS ns1.whoismark.com 86400s
whoismark.com A 174.142.161.125 14400s
Authority records
Additional records
whoismark.com A 174.142.161.125 14400s
ns1.whoismark.com A 174.142.161.124 14400s
ns2.whoismark.com A 174.142.161.126 14400s

Whois query for whoismark.com

Results returned from whois.internic.net:

Domain Name: WHOISMARK.COM

Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM

Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Name Server: NS1.WHOISMARK.COM
Name Server: NS2.WHOISMARK.COM

Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 20-jun-2010
Creation Date: 03-mar-2009
Expiration Date: 03-mar-2013

Last update of whois database: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:31:54 UTC
The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

Spammer Have Real Names – Alabama Spammers

The anti-spam ball is starting to roll, albeit slowly. A tiny step, but they add up and set an example. Here, Earthlink can use its considerable financial and legal resources to begin breaking the balls of spammers. Microsoft, AOL, AT&T (et al) will follow.

Let the crushing begin.

From ComputerWire, 2-19-04:
____________________________

EarthLink Names “Alabama Spammers” in Fraud Suit

EarthLink Inc this week said it has tracked down about 19 individuals and companies it says are responsible for some of the most egregious spam attacks against its users, a group EarthLink calls the “Alabama Spammers”.

The names were revealed as part of an amendment to a fraud and racketeering lawsuit EarthLink filed in its native Georgia last August, which initially named the alleged spammers as “John Does”.

“Over the course of the past few months we have been focusing the investigation on identifying the spammers so we can proceed with the litigation,” EarthLink’s assistant general counsel Karen Cashion said.

Among those now listed as defendants are four members of ROKSO, the Register Of Known Spam Operations, a database of 200 alleged high-volume spammers maintained by SpamHaus.org, a UK-based spam blacklist company.

Damon Decrescenzo, who is listed on the January ROKSO as the world’s second most prolific spammer, is now named in the suit, as are the ROKSO-listed Albert Ahdoot, and Alyxsandra Sachs who together trade under the name Net Global Marketing. Albert Ahdoot now operates Colocation America or Colocation America, Inc. or Colocation America Corporation a reseller of  Colocation services.

EarthLink’s suit alleges violations of federal and state civil racketeering laws, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act.

Since the activities in question are alleged to have occurred in 2003, the CAN-SPAM Act, the US’s new anti-spam law, does not come into play. Cashion declined to comment on whether EarthLink will file suits in future under CAN-SPAM.

While the ISP coined the name “Alabama Spammers” for the group, this was due to their alleged use of phone lines in Alabama to send e-mail. The individuals now listed in the suit are from many different US states.

Source: Computing Net – Tom’s Guide

Alan Ralsky, Ten Others, Indicted in International Illegal Spamming and Stock Fraud Scheme

Alan Ralsky, Ten Others, Indicted in International Illegal Spamming and Stock Fraud Scheme

WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury indictment was unsealed today in Detroit charging 11 persons, including Alan M. Ralsky, his son-in-law Scott K. Bradley, and Judy M. Devenow, of Michigan, and eight others, including a dual national of Canada and Hong Kong and individuals from Russia, California, and Arizona, in a wide-ranging international fraud scheme involving the illegal use of bulk commercial e-mailing, or “spamming.”

Charged in the 41-count indictment are:

  1. Alan M. Ralsky, 64, of West Bloomfield, Michigan
  2. Scott K. Bradley, 46, of West Bloomfield, Michigan
  3. Judy M. Devenow, 55, of Lansing, Michigan
  4. John S. Bown, 47, of Poway, California
  5. William C. Neil, 45, of Fresno, California
  6. Anki K. Neil, 36, of Fresno, California
  7. James E. Bragg, 39, of Queen Creek, Arizona
  8. James E. Fite, 34, of Whittier, California
  9. Peter Severa, age unknown, of Russia
  10. How Wai John Hui, 49, of Vancouver, Canada and Hong Kong
  11. Francis A. Tribble, of Los Angeles, California

Appearing in court for arraignment today were defendants Scott Bradley and Judy Devenow, who were arrested today. Defendant How Wai John Hui was arrested in the Eastern District of New York on Jan. 2, 2008. The remaining defendants are being sought.

Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division said, “The flood of illegal spam continues to wreak havoc on the online marketplace and has become a global criminal enterprise. It clogs consumers’ email boxes with scams and unwanted messages and imposes significant costs on our society. This indictment reflects the commitment of the Department of Justice to prosecuting these spamming organizations wherever they may operate. I would like to thank the many prosecutors and agents for their extraordinary efforts leading up to the indictment.”

U.S. Attorney Stephen J. Murphy said, “Today’s charges seek to knock out one of the largest illegal spamming and fraud operations in the country, an international scheme to make money by manipulating stock prices through illegal spam e-mail promotions. I commend the excellent investigative work of the FBI, Postal Inspection Service, and the IRS-Criminal Investigation Division. I also wish to recognize the significant support and expertise provided by the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.”

The charges arose after a three-year investigation – led by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with assistance from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Internal Revenue Service – revealed a sophisticated and extensive spamming operation that, as alleged in the indictment, largely focused on running a stock “pump and dump” scheme, whereby the defendants sent spam touting thinly traded Chinese penny stocks, drove up their stock price, and reaped profits by selling the stock at artificially inflated prices. According to the indictment, the defendants used various illegal methods in order to maximize the amount of spam that evaded spam- blocking devices and tricked recipients into opening, and acting on, the advertisements in the spam. These included using falsified “headers” in the email messages, using proxy computers to relay the spam, using falsely registered domain names to send the spam, as well as making misrepresentations in the advertising content of some of the underlying email messages.

The indictment also alleges that the defendants tried to send their spam by utilizing a cybercrime tool known as a “botnet,” which is a network of “robot” computers that have been infected with malicious software code that in turn would instruct the infected computers to send spam. The indictment charges that the defendants earned profits when recipients responded to the spam and purchased the touted products and services. Hui’s primary role in the scheme was to act as a conduit for Chinese companies who wanted their stocks pumped by the scheme. Ultimately, investigators estimate that the defendants earned approximately $3 million during the summer of 2005 alone as a result of their illegal spamming activities.

During the course of their illegal spamming operation, the types of products and services that the defendants pitched evolved over time, as did the types of illegal spamming techniques they employed. The 41-count indictment covers three distinct, but interrelated, conspiracies to capture this evolution in their business practices. The indictment charges the defendants with the commission of several federal criminal offenses, including conspiracy, fraud in connection with electronic mail (CAN SPAM), computer fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. It also charges the defendants with criminal asset forfeiture, as well as charging one defendant with making false statements to law enforcement.

The case is being prosecuted by First Assistant U.S. Attorney Terrence Berg and Trial Attorneys Thomas Dukes and Mona Spivack of the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.

DOJ- Criminal Division
(202) 514-2008
TDD (202) 514-1888
WWW.USDOJ.GOV

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ralskyIndict.htm

Albert Ahdoot aka Albert A. Ahdoot dba Colocation America Corporation/Multacom.com Partner


Albert Ahdoot Formerly of Net Global Marketing Now Colocation America Corporation/ColocationUSA/Multacom.com Partner

We signed up on 10/29/08 with Mr. Albert Ahdoot aka Albert A. Ahdoot aka Shwan Ahdoot aka Shawn Jacobs aka sjacobs26 aka   Michael Trunkett aka Brian Breenspan aka David Stein aka Amy Goldstein former owner of Net Global Marketing now dba Colocation America, Inc dba Colocation America Corporation dba ColocationUSA a reseller of Colocation service and a Multacom Partner or Affiliate. I had no knowledge of Mr. Ahdoot past business practices or who he is. Mr. Ahdoot sounded trustworthy and someone you can do business with.

To my surprised, my hosting experienced has been a total disaster. Mr. Ahdoot service contract is tailor to protect his interest whereby you as a customer have no recourse.

Between January 27 – 30, 2009 we experienced massive DDoS attacks as we normally do. On 01/30/09 Mr. Ahdoot informed me that he had null routed (turned off server that hosted my website – ScamFraudAlert.com because of the DDoS attacks.

On 2/1/09, I asked Mr. Ahdoot how soon can I expect to have site back up and running. Mr Ahdoot then informed me he had no idea. At this point I requested contract terminated and that I move site to a new host. This is where my nightmare begun.

Mr. Ahdoot requested that I purchased the server he (Colocation America Corporation – http://www.colocationAmerica) leased me.  He also requested that I pay for February 2009 service. Upon fulfilling those requests, Mr. Ahdoot requested that I signed a release ‘Stating That I Will Not Bad Mouth’ his company Colocation America.

In my attempts to retrieve my database (DB), I agreed and signed a release indicating that I signed the release under duress or coercion. Mr. Ahdoot then informed me that the ‘RELEASE’ faxed over was not acceptable and I needed to sign one prepared by his Attorney. I refused and my ‘Database’ or ‘Server’ I’ve since purchased have been confiscated.

I believe Multacom.com Corporation should hold their business partners to a higher ethical standards so as to avoid such incidents. Based on my researched of Mr. Ahdoot past business practices, it appears like his version of events involving disputes are always different from what actually happened.



When dealing or conducting business with Mr. Albert Ahdoot dba Colocation America, Inc. www.coloctionamerica.com and his related businesses or data centers, please exercise CAUTION AND CARE  as Mr. Ahdoot is not a man of his word.

Mr. Ahdoot and his company Colocation America Corp. have a REPUTATION OF BEING SUED and MANUFACTURING LAWSUITS against OTHERS by his Attorney Paul S. Sigelman The Self-Anointed Perry Mason Defense Attorney of  Paul Sigelman Law Firm or sigelmanlaw.com of  Beverly Hills.

Colocation America is a register Nevada Corporation with no physical location or address in the State of  Nevada and no transfer agent in the State of California (Los Angeles County) its principal place of business. [They have since listed with the Secretary of State California]

ScamFraudAlert.com
California
U.S.A.


  • colocation america albert Ahdoot
  • colocation america hosting reviews
  • colocation america uptime
  • colocation america web hosting
  • colocation america corporation
  • colocation america inc
  • data centers colocation america
  • carrier neutral colocation america
  • colocation hosting
  • colocation america albert
  • holiday travel of america
  • collocation by location
  • Colocation Amsterdam
  • Colocation Atlanta
  • Colocation Baltimore
  • Colocation Berlin
  • Colocation Boston
  • Colocation Brussels
  • Colocation Charlotte
  • Colocation Chicago
  • Colocation Cincinnati
  • Colocation Dallas
  • Colocation Denver
  • Colocation Detroit
  • Colocation Dusseldorf
  • Colocation Emeryville
  • Colocation Frankfurt
  • Colocation Garden City
  • Colocation Geneva
  • Colocation Hamburg
  • Colocation Houston
  • Colocation London
  • Colocation Los Angeles
  • Colocation Madrid
  • Colocation Miami
  • Colocation Munich
  • Colocation New York City
  • Colocation Newark
  • Colocation Orlando
  • Colocation Paris
  • Colocation Philadelphia
  • Colocation Phoenix
  • Colocation Reston
  • Colocation San Diego
  • Colocation San Francisco
  • Colocation San Jose
  • Colocation Santa Clara
  • Colocation Seattle
  • Colocation St. Louis
  • Colocation Stamford
  • Colocation Sunnyvale
  • Colocation Tampa
  • Colocation Tustin
  • Colocation USA
  • Colocation Washington D.C
  • Colocation Weehawken
  • Colocation Zurich

Lawsuits



bbb-las-vegas24


Contact Email for Albert Ahdoot:

www.ColocationAmerica.com

Albert@colocationamerica.com

Sales@ColocationAmerica.com

Contact Information
shawn@colocationamerica.com
Shiva@ColocationAmerica.com
Company: Colocation America
Email: pr@colocationamerica.com
Website: http://www.colocationamerica.com


1-818-881-2612
1-310-717-9137
(310)717-9137
1-800-296-8915
(800)296-8915
1-213-928-6929
(213)928-6929
1-800-296-8915
1-415-349-2100
(415)349-2133
1-206-984-1344
(206)984-1344
1-888-505-3656
(888)505-3656
1-888-505-COLO
(888)505-COLO

Los Angeles CA Address
Colocation America aka Colocation America Corporation
Level3Colocation.com
530 W. 6th St. Suite 903 (HQ)
Los Angeles, CA 90014

AS21769 COLOAM – Data Center Map

Colocation America San Fernando Valley, CA Address
6828 Valjean Avenue
Van Nuys California 91406
U.S.A.

  • Colocation America – San Francisco, CA (California) | 800-296-8915
  • Colocation America – Data Center in Los Angeles, CA 90017 – (800)296-8915
  • Colocation Data Center in MT Prospect, IL 60056 – (800) 296-8915
  • New Jersey Server Colocation in Clifton – (800) 296-8915
  • Colocation Data Center in Mount Prospect, IL 60056 – (800) 296-8915
  • Colocation America in Los Angeles, CA – (800) 296-8915


Here’s what we know about level3colocation.com:

* “Colocation America Corporation” owns about 443 other domains View these domains >
* is a contact on the whois record of 113 domains
* 2 registrars have maintained records for this domain since 2004-08-19 with 1 drop.
* This domain has changed name servers 4 times over 6 years.
* Hosted on 6 IP addresses over 6 years.
* View 9 ownership records archived since 2004-08-21 .
* Wiki article on Level3colocation.com
* level3colocation.com is hosted on a dedicated server.


  1. http://www.collocationfacility.net
  2. http://www.collocationhosting.net
  3. http://www.colocationamerica.net
  4. http://www.colocationby.net
  5. http://www.colocationdirectory.net
  6. http://www.colocationlist.net
  7. http://www.albertahdoot.com
  8. Data Center Map
  9. www.fullymanageddedicatedserver.com
  10. colocation los angeles
  11. http://www.colocationmap.net
  12. http://www.colocationnews.net
  13. http://www.colocationone.net
  14. http://www.colocationsearch.net
  15. http://www.colocationsites.net
  16. http://www.colocationst.net
  17. http://www.colocationamerica.net
  18. http://www.colocationamerica.net
  19. http://www.collocationamerica.com
  20. http://www.colocationfor.com
  21. http://www.co-location-america.com
  22. http://www.colocationspecials.com
  23. http://www.colocationheadquarters.com
  24. http://www.colocationonline.com
  25. http://www.webhostdir.com
  26. http://www.topcolocation.net
  27. http://www.swat4dedicatedserver.com
  28. http://www.megacolocation.com
  29. http://www.colocationalaska.com
  30. http://www.worldcolocation.com
  31. http://www.colocationresults.com
  32. http://www.dedicatedserversql.com
  33. http://www.colocationwhite.com
  34. http://www.datacentermap.com
  35. http://www.500bandwidthmhz.com
  36. http://www.megacolocation.com
  37. http://www.colocationcenters.net
  38. http://www.colocationprovider.org
  39. http://www.colocation-america.com
  40. http://www.colocationincorporated.com
  41. http://www.colocationohio.com
  42. http://www.colocation-america.com
  43. http://www.colocationwyoming.com
  44. http://www.colocationinamerica.com
  45. http://www.onecolocationservice.com
  46. http://www.wisconsincolocation.com
  47. http://www.colocationarkansas.com
  48. http://www.colocationamericacorp.com
  49. http://www.dedicatedserverexperts.com
  50. http://www.bandnwidthusa.com
  51. http://www.globalcrossingbandwidth.com
  52. http://www.cheapdatacenter.com
  53. www. colocationindiana.com
  54. www. colocationarkansas.com
  55. http://www.colocationillinois.com
  56. http://www.colocationmississippi.com
  57. http://www.colocationnewjersey.com
  58. http://www.colocationutah.com
  59. http://www.vermontcolocation.com
  60. http://www.nebraskacolocation.com
  61. http://www.westvirginiacolocation.com
  62. http://www.ohiocolocation.com
  63. http://www.iowacolocation.com
  64. http://www.kentuckycolocation.com
  65. http://www.kansascolocation.com
  66. http://www.colocationalabama.com
  67. http://www.alabamacolocation.com
  68. http://www.colocationnorthdakota.com
  69. http://www.northdakotacolocation.com
  70. http://www.colocationwisconsin.com
  71. http://www.missouricolocation.com
  72. http://www.colocationvermont.com
  73. http://www.colocationmontana.com
  74. http://www.colocationmaine.com
  75. http://www.colocationiowa.com
  76. http://www.oklahomacolocation.com
  77. http://www.colocationmassachusetts.com
  78. http://www.colocationnevada.com
  79. http://www.colocationlouisiana.com
  80. http://www.georgiacolocation.com
  81. http://www.colocationnewhampshire.com
  82. http://www.colocationdelaware.com
  83. http://www.colocationmichigan.com
  84. http://www.tennesseecolocation.com
  85. http://www.colocationwyoming.com
  86. minnesotacolocation.com
  87. http://www.colocationphoenix.com
  88. http://www.montanacolocation.com
  89. http://www.colocationidaho.com
  90. http://www.colocationvirginia.com
  91. http://www.wisconsincolocation.com
  92. http://www.arkansascolocation.com
  93. http://www.colocationwestvirginia.com
  94. http://www.colocationsouthdakota.com
  95. http://www.indianacolocation.com
  96. http://www.colocationnebraska.com
  97. http://www.colocationsouthcarolina.com
  98. http://www.colocationkansas.com
  99. http://www.colocationorangecounty.com
  100. http://www.colocationnorthcarolina.com
  101. http://www.newhampshirecolocation.com
  102. http://www.mississippicolocation.com
  103. http://www.southcarolinacolocation.com
  104. http://www.colocationresult.com
  105. http://www.colocationchoice.com
  106. http://www.worldcolocation.com
  107. http://www.alaskacolocation.com
  108. http://www.northcarolinacolocation.com
  109. http://www.colocationkentucky.com
  110. http://www.colocationohio.com
  111. http://www.southdakotacolocation.com
  112. http://www.colocationflorida.com
  113. http://www.colocationalaska.com
  114. http://www.colocationphiladelphia.com
  115. http://www.colocationrhodeisland.com
  116. http://www.onecolocationservice.com
  117. http://www.colocationservicesinfo.com
  118. http://www.k2colocations.com
  119. http://www.askcolocations.com

How Microsoft Appointed Itself Sheriff of the Internet

By: Robert McMillian – wired.com

“There’s simply no other company that takes such a direct approach to taking on scammers.”

Robert McMillian of wired.com report on How Mircosoft appointed itself sheriff of the internet is right to the point we’ve been making over the years. If more companies were taking legal actions against cyber-criminals and those harboring these creeps like Mircosoft have been doing, then Target, Home Depot, JP Morgan Chase and many more US companies may not have endured data breaches.

What we mean by this? We defined cyber-crime as a web of individuals, venture capitalists, investment bankers, ISP providers acting knowingly or unknowingly in aiding cyber criminals by their actions, company policies and business practices.

From reading wired.com article, it appears like legal scholars and security experts such as the Eric Goldman, a First Amendment Professor at Santa Clara University, California and Electronic Frontier Foundation disagreed with Mircosoft practices.

They argued that Mircosoft actions as sheriff thwarts our legal system of adjudication, deprived a person of Due Process Under the Law. In essence what Mr. Goldman and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are saying is that Doctrine of Habeas Corpus should be evoke.

“No-IP is a legitimate company whose services are used by thousands of law-abiding citizens. The fact that Microsoft could knock it offline, as if it were another Waledac, has many observers worried.”

As you can see, cybercriminals are well financed. To take them down would require a company like Mircosoft or Target or JP Morgan Chase. Someone with deep pockets and the resources like Mircosoft to take on these creeps. Mircosoft must not be the only company fighting cyber crimes. Others need to follow.

scamFRAUDalert position is that we are at WAR. Our privacy are being invaded. The public safety is at risk. Article I Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless where in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion of Public Safety.”

We believe there is an invasion of public safety with the spreading of malwares as in the case of IP’S addresses associated with NO-IP.com or any company that houses malwares. Public safety tramp our judicial processes and collateral damages that may result. These individuals are well financed, can easily buy US Senators and Judges.

Tell US What You Think

Litvin, Torrens & Associates and Litvin Law Firm

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has filed charges against Miami-based Litvin, Torrens & Associates, Breaking NewsBrooklyn-based Litvin Law Firm with running a fraudulent mortgage rescue scheme.

See more at: http://therealdeal.com/miami/blog/2014/10/02/ny-ag-files-civil-complaint-against-miami-law-firm/#sthash.j77xs21w.dpuf

DOLETAJOB.COM IS NOT www.doleta.gov

scamFRAUDalert see it appropriate to issue this ALERT as scammer are impersonating UNITED STATES scamalert4DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration (ETA) site.

The WhoIs appears to be someone identity STOLEN for the website is listed below:

Address lookup

lookup failed doletajob.com
Could not find an IP address for this domain name.
Domain Whois record

Queried whois.internic.net with “dom doletajob.com”

Domain Name: DOLETAJOB.COM
Registrar: BIZCN.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.bizcn.com
Referral URL: http://www.bizcn.com
Name Server: NS1.SECOITALY.NET
Name Server: NS2.SECOITALY.NET
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited

Updated Date: 28-sep-2014
Creation Date: 28-sep-2014
Expiration Date: 28-sep-2015

Last update of whois database: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 00:50:39 GMT
Queried whois.bizcn.com with “doletajob.com”

Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.bizcn.com
Registrar URL: http://www.bizcn.com
Updated Date: 2014-09-28T13:35:26Z
Creation Date: 2014-09-28T13:35:26Z

Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-09-28T13:35:26Z
Registrar: Bizcn.com,Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 471
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@bizcn.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +86.5922577888

Reseller: Cnobin Technology HK Limited

Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited

Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Nicholas Rivera
Registrant Organization: Nicholas M. Rivera
Registrant Street: 4942 Alexander Avenue
Registrant City: San Jose
Registrant State/Province: CA
Registrant Postal Code: 95131
Registrant Country: us
Registrant Phone: +1.925-695-2678
Registrant Fax: +1.9256952678
Registrant Email: info@doletajob.com
Registry Admin ID:

Admin Name: Nicholas Rivera
Admin Organization: Nicholas M. Rivera
Admin Street: 4942 Alexander Avenue
Admin City: San Jose
Admin State/Province: CA
Admin Postal Code: 95131
Admin Country: us
Admin Phone: +1.925-695-2678
Admin Fax: +1.9256952678
Admin Email: info@doletajob.com

Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: Nicholas Rivera
Tech Organization: Nicholas M. Rivera
Tech Street: 4942 Alexander Avenue
Tech City: San Jose
Tech State/Province: CA
Tech Postal Code: 95131
Tech Country: us
Tech Phone: +1.925-695-2678
Tech Fax: +1.9256952678
Tech Email: info@doletajob.com

Name Server: ns1.secoitaly.net
Name Server: ns2.secoitaly.net

DNSSEC: NotsignedDelegation
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/

Last update of WHOIS database: 2014-09-30T00:50:48Z
Network Whois record

Don’t have an IP address for which to get a record

DNS records

name class type data time to live
doletajob.com IN SOA
server: ns1.secoitaly.net
email:
serial: 1412097002
refresh: 60
retry: 120
expire: 1048576
minimum ttl: 900
900s (00:15:00)
doletajob.com IN NS ns1.secoitaly.net 900s (00:15:00)
doletajob.com IN NS ns2.secoitaly.net 900s (00:15:00)
doletajob.com IN MX
preference: 10
exchange: mx.doletajob.com

humfrid@doletajob.com

The Purpose of this post is to ALERT you that the job you are about to apply for scamalert4or may have applied FOR or is CONSIDERING APPLYING FOR is FRAUDULENT. The identities of individuals or a business entity have been stolen along with fund from their bank accounts.

These job postings are an attempt to lure you into accepting wire transfers and cashing counterfeit checks into your bank accounts. You are being recruited to wire transfer these funds via WESTERN UNION or MONEYGRAM from your bank into a DOMESTIC BANK or OFFSHORE BANK ACCOUNT.

Essentially You Become A Money or Repackage Mule

  1. Money Mule Explained
  2. Understanding The Cyber Theft Ring
  3. Protecting Yourself Against Money Mule
  4. KrebsOnSecurity – Cyberheist
  5. Washingtonpost.com by Brian Krebs
  6. Interview With A Money Mule
  7. Bobbear.co.UK ~ Historical Money Mule Sites

____________________

Good day!

We considered your resume to be very attractive and we thought the vacant position in our company could be interesting for you.

Our firm specializes in consultation services in the matter of bookkeeping and business administration.
We cooperate with different countries and currently we have many clients in the US.
Due to this fact, we need to increase the number of our destination representatives’ regular staff.

You will be responsible for shipping goods from multiple shops through our company to different places.
Part-time and full-time employment are both currently important.
We offer a flat wage from $1000 up to $3,500 per month.

If you are interested in our offer, mail to us your answer on humfrid@doletajob.com, and we will send you an extensive information as soon as possible.

Attention! Accept applications only on this and next week.

Respectively submitted
Personnel department

Annoying Telemarketer Calls 855-278-1381

scamFRAUDalert see it appropriate to issue this ALERT as scammers/spammers deploy an arsenal of scam scamalert4tactics. They reinvent themselves. They all have a store which they operate that appears to be legitimate but the bulk of their business practices are scams.

Below are some of they annoying harassing telemarketing call numbers that have been reported online. These scammers are trying to sell you anything from a debt collector payday loan, or “you are a prize winner” or “job website masquerading as legitimate” job search engine. They use names like Asset Recovery Group, Home Affordable Direct, etc. etc. etc..

Consumers and job seekers need to exercise care and caution when filling out online job applications and other requirement at these sites.

  1. 855-278-1381
  2. 855-637-9571
  3. 845-501-5004
  4. 480-444-7660
  5. 610-750-8342
  6. 844-702-0087
  7. 786-235-9483
  8. 647-493-2355
  9. 410-767-6774
  10. 888-314-7891
  11. 914-555-9876
  12. 414-395-5055
  13. 870-568-5585
  14. 855-278-1381
  15. 855-233-8081
  16. 855-699-2867
  17. 855-699-2911
  18. 866-930-0847
  19. 206-466-8262
  20. 844-811-3905
  21. 909-999-8841
  22. 855-977-2128
  23. 408-740-9556
  24. 215-589-6839
  25. 215-589-6839
  26. 714-776-9521
  27. 562-595-9548
  28. 312-572-6990
  29. 201-351-7742
  30. 855-257-0385
  31. 855-283-6143
  32. 855-283-6144
  33. 855-283-5484
  34. 866-930-0847
  35. Rewardsflow.com
  36. RewardZone USA, LLC
  37. Rewardzoneusa.com
  38. http://www.rewardzoneusa.com/

Package Manager – belboltkytoa@dropmail.me

The Purpose of this post is to ALERT you that the job you are about to apply for scamalert4or may have applied FOR or is CONSIDERING APPLYING FOR is FRAUDULENT. The identities of individuals or a business entity have been stolen along with fund from their bank accounts.

These job postings are an attempt to lure you into accepting wire transfers and cashing counterfeit checks into your bank accounts. You are being recruited to wire transfer these funds via WESTERN UNION or MONEYGRAM from your bank into a DOMESTIC BANK or OFFSHORE BANK ACCOUNT.

Essentially You Become A Money or Repackage Mule

  1. Money Mule Explained
  2. Understanding The Cyber Theft Ring
  3. Protecting Yourself Against Money Mule
  4. KrebsOnSecurity – Cyberheist
  5. Washingtonpost.com by Brian Krebs
  6. Interview With A Money Mule
  7. Bobbear.co.UK ~ Historical Money Mule Sites

____________________

from: scamFRAUDalert
to: Postmaster scamFRAUDalert
cc: Administrator ,
AOL Users
date: Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:14 AM
subject: Well paid home job available

Our company is happy to feature this new great vacancy of “Package Manager”.

This position is designed exclusively for caretakers. If you are able to be
home from 9am through 5pm, this job is offering you the best opportunity to
earn money.

You will have to work with parcels. You will have to receive parcels,
repack them and send them to the end addressee. This job is extremely
convenient and it is ideally suited for housewives, retirees and others who
either work from home or are at home during daytime hours.

There will be no heavy packages. Most packages contain toys and clothes.

You need no money to apply.. You will not have to spend any of your money
earning money with us. All work-related expenses are on us.

To work for our company you will have to have a Internet ready PC, a cell
phone and means to print necessary documents.

The amount of money you will be earning depends on the quantity of parcels
you will be processing.

During the probationary period our employees make up to $150/week.

Contact us now belboltkytoa@dropmail.me

P.S. To qualify, all you have to do is to be home from 9am to 5pm. You must
meet this condition or, this job is not for you.