Traffic Power Case Updated: Your Help Needed!

Your help is needed in the Traffic Power case...

I was looking for the latest updates to my case, and while I was looking through the court cases in the United States District Court, District of Nevada I log into the Pacer Service and saw that the case has recently been updated.

I still have not had any specifics handed my way, but it would probably be fair to assume that the Traffic Power strategy is going to be fairly similar with how they handle my case and the case of

If you log in to pacer you will see that on 01/25/2006 Traffic Power's new lawyer Mark S. Dzarnoski added document #17 to the Traffic Power Sucks case, a Docket Text Amended Complaint. As far as I am aware this is the first point in time Traffic Power has offered anyone they have threatened or sued any specifics as to the reasons behind the threats or lawsuit.

These claims are not against me, but are against another webmaster being sued by the same company that is suing me. I don't want conjecture or noise comments like "I think xzy are ..." but if you can help the webmaster of gather evidence about any truth to these alleged defamatory conditions it would help both of us greatly.

Some of them may be easy to refute while others will likely be harder.

Keep in mind that some clients who hired may not be internet savvy and probably do not read my website, so if we can spread this message far and wide we will have a better chance of many people seeing this and hopefully helping to get this situation resolved for everyone.

In document #17 of 2:05-cv-01094-RCJ-LRL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT OF NEVADA v. DAVID BAARDSEN, et al. under the defamation cause of action Traffic Power's new lawyer asserted the following:

The false and defamatory information includes but is not limited to the following:

a. Claims that the search engine giant Google has banned and is banning from its search engine listings websites of clients because of the search engine optimization strategies used by Plaintiff.

b. Claims that clients of run the risk of being banned from Google search engine listings if they use services;

c. Claims that plagiarizes its web page optimization work;

d. Claims that Plaintiff has started several new businesses under different names to hide its identity;

e. Claims that two new businesses started by Plaintiff are under investigation by several agencies;

f. Claims that and/or innuendo that Plaintiff is engaged in extortion of its clients because of the techniques used by Plaintiff in optimizing search engine listings;

g. Claims that Plaintiff's business constitutes a scam and that clients of Plaintiff are "victims;"

h. Claims that Plaintiff stole from defendants;

i. Claims that the business practices of Plaintiff constituted some kind of actionable violation of the rights of its clients and that the filing of a class action lawsuit against Plaintiff by its clients was imminent; and

j. Claims that Plaintiff formed and operates fake Internet forums on search engine optimization to promote its services.

Time is of the essence. If you have any evidence that would prove any of these claims factual please step forward.

If you would like to contact the webmaster of Traffic Power Sucks you can do so at You also can contact me at if you would prefer to speak with me.

Published: January 27, 2006 by Aaron Wall in internet


January 28, 2006 - 1:47am

Is there any chance of hiring a real expert witness? I'm talking about a Googler or ex-Googler who can substantiate the claims that TP's practices can damage website SE rankings.

January 28, 2006 - 2:24am

Between here and Threadwatch I am sure at least a couple Googlers caught the story, but I am not sure if it is in their best interests to participate in this sort of thing. Time will tell.

I am sure they will figure out what they want to do, but if any Googler does make a statement I would not want it to be paid / sponsored / or have anything else with it that made it seemed like it was somehow an after the fact non offical statement that was bribed / paid for / or something like that.

If an ex Googler made a statement the validity might be questioned since they no longer work with the company, and I doubt Google would make statements about cases like this for money. That would fall deep into the category they call evil. Plus I am sure the average Googler is far richer than I will ever be. Even after the DOJ stock drop it shares climbed right back up about 40 points and are worth well over $400 each. You don't need to have too many of those for them to add up quick ;)

There might be some expert witnesses outside of Google that would be willing to give their professional opinions on the matter as well. Many great people in search donated and / or gave coverage to the story.

It is really cool how nice people have been to me.

January 28, 2006 - 7:05am

Danny served as expert witness at least once, in the Playboy meta tag case; could he be some help here?

February 12, 2006 - 6:34am

In light of Matt's recent post it's all moot now of course, but paying expert witnesses is how the system works. It's not bribery -- you're paying the expert for his time. His credentials still need to be bona fide and he will be x-examined WRT his qualifications. If Matt Cutts shows up for free for you, that's just a bonus.

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.