BUSTED! JOURNALIST DANIEL GLICK EXPOSED BY PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR. "Because the truth isn't always profitable" - The Story Group Ethics Alert Author

By Michael Roberts of Rexxfield

 

MICHAEL ROBERTS’ RESPONDS TO INACCURATE ARTICLE, “I MARRIED A MURDERESS,” PUBLISHED ON APRIL 20, 2013 IN THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

 

"Although it is somewhat torturous to read, Michael's logical analysis of Glick's article is a masterpiece."

~JBS

 

UPDATE July 09, 2014

 

A 124 page criminal warrant that was unsealed today indicates that Journalist Daniel Glick is participating in the following crimes: Ongoing Criminal Conduct, a
Class "B" Felony (IOWA CODE § 706A.2); Conspiracy, a Class "D" Felony (IOWA CODE §706.1 ); Solicitation, a Class "D" Felony; Extortion (IOWA CODE § 705.1 ), a Class "D" Felony (IOWA CODE § 711.4); and Witness Tampering, an Aggravated Misdemeanor (IOWA Code§720.4), Facilitation of A Criminal Network By Attempting To Induce A Witness" commits a Class "B" Felony. IOWA CODE § 706A.2 (2013).

 

Although Dan Glick's direct actions are limited only to witness tampering, if it is established that his defamatory and fallacious article was done in concert with the conspirators named in the warrant, then Glick himself may be considered a principal of all indicated crimes, pursuant to RICO laws. The warrant reveals that Michael Roberts is in fact a victim of the criminal conspiracy, as opposed to a "murky" individual as characterized by Glick in his article.

 

DOWNLOAD Copy of Criminal Warrant

 

How this response works:

 

Text displayed in BLACK or RED is the original story as published (after the article title below). The BLACK text is content that does not require a response; RED text represents Glick’s lies, spin or innuendo for which a response is demanded.

 

NOTE: To avoid confusion, the article excerpts are all italicized and indented just like this, with challenged excerpts in red.

 

Text displayed in BLUE express my response to each published lie.

 

Response to Article: “I MARRIED A MURDERESS” by Daniel Glick

Published Date April 20, 2013 Sydney Morning Herald

On the surface, it's a straightforward enough scenario: an Aussie dad locked in an international custody battle with his homicidal American ex-wife. But as Daniel Glick discovers, the truth is a whole lot murkier.

A combination of logical fallacies were used by journalist Daniel Glick in the above article summary as described below:

(1)  APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO

a.      APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without stating it outright. In this example the overly specific nature of the innuendo. The structure of the fallacious argument looks like this:

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      Michael Roberts is somehow suspect, even though Daniel Glick does not make (or justify) a direct statement of accusation.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      The innuendo has no supporting evidence except for other logical fallacies such as an appeal to authority, and guilt by association.

b.     Whereas, I implicitly told Daniel Glick during the interview that "the truth behind the story is incredibly convoluted". Daniel Glick's use of the word "discovers” implies that he is responsible for his revelations. Whereas, he did not discover the truth, he simply verified my contention that the case is convoluted (i.e. "Murkier").

c.      MOTIVE: Daniel Glick needs the reader and his editor to believe that he discovered something new to validate his status as an "Investigative Journalist" and to justify the fee paid to him for the story.

(2)  APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

a.      AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, also known as an argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), it is argued that something is true; because someone of authority (like an investigative journalist) says it is true.

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      Daniel Glick says X is true

b.     Daniel Glick is an authoritative source

c.      So X must be true

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      Daniel Glick and his Editor Ben Naparstek have, according to evidence published by peers, demonstrated a propensity to publish lies and what peers describe as “hatchet pieces” and/or “inaccurate attack pieces”

(3)  ASSOCIATION FALLACY

a.      AN ASSOCIATION FALLACY is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring, which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. It is sometimes referred to as guilt by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      Michael is associated with the Richter Murder case

b.     Michael is also associated with the Zuckerman case, which is “murky”

c.      Therefore, Michael’s character must be murky.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      What is true of one thing is not necessarily true of the other.

It's December 13, 2001. America is staggering after the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings and paranoia runs very deep. Tracey Roberts, a housewife in Early, Iowa (population 557), confronts two intruders who have broken into her house while her husband is away. The invaders, one of them a socially awkward 20-year-old neighbour named Dustin Wehde, try to strangle her with pantyhose and seem hell-bent on killing her (a story the burn marks on her neck appear to confirm). But Tracey manages to squirm away to the gun safe, worried sick about her three children, all under the age of 12, in the next room. She grasps two handguns and, in a feat of sharpshooting that would make Annie Oakley proud, forces one intruder to flee before getting rid of the other in a fusillade of two-fisted gunfire.

Tracey is hailed as the Middle America gun-ownership poster gal of the year. Her heroic act emphatically demonstrates how a brave woman, amply armed, can ward off attackers, save her children and dispense frontier justice, albeit with a surfeit of bullets.

Her second husband, Michael Roberts, an Australian Internet security entrepreneur, is 400 kilometers away on a business trip in Minneapolis. After a call from a neighbour, Michael races home. Upon reuniting with Tracey in the hospital, he sees that his wife is bruised but not badly hurt. He believes Tracey's self-defense story.

On the way home, just hours after she has riddled a 20-year-old with bullets, Tracey insists on making love, right there, in the car. Michael chalks up the startling but not unenjoyable post-shooting romp to the trauma of events.

CORRECTION:  There was no car sex. Tracey wanted to have sex several hours after being released from hospital at her mother's home in the guest room. This advance was made after I could no longer stand up to the emotional and physical exhaustion and insisted that we get some sleep. By saying there was car sex, for whatever reason, has more of a sensationalistic or prurient appeal.

ESSENTIAL READING: Give Your Kids & Yourself An Intellectual Self Defense System Against Liars>>

 

Fight back against the modern education system which creates slaves to what they read on the Internet & the mainstream media, rather than thinking for themselves. This book teaches teens & adults how to recognize twisted truth when they see it, and demolish arguments & false allegations of unethical journalists and liars is general.

 

The police decide Tracey has committed a lethal but justifiable act. The case is closed.

Queenslander Michael Roberts first met Tracey Richter on an online dating site in 1996. They flirted electronically for a few months, then married in Brisbane 18 days after meeting in person. It was the second marriage for both. The newlyweds moved to the United States and had two children, adding to a family that included Tracey's son from her first marriage to a plastic surgeon in Virginia.

But the marriage between Tracey and Michael was never quite the same after the events of December 2001. In 2004, the couple separated, finally divorcing four years later. A catalyst in the breakup, Michael says, was Tracey insisting the pair of them do what she called a "trust exercise" in which she rolled Michael up in a sheet and attached his clothes to it with safety pins she had purchased from Walmart the day before. She then drugged him with olanzapine (a schizophrenia drug) and zolpidem (a sleeping pill) and partially suffocated him with a plastic bag.

LOGICAL FALLACY USED BY DANIEL GLICK:

(1)  MISLEADING STATEMENT (LIE)

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      Michael submitted to Tracey’s trust exercise

b.     Tracey drugged Michael after (not before) the trust exercise

c.      Therefore Michael is an imbecile

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      The journalist reversed the order of events to cause the readers to arrive at a different conclusion.

b.     Whereas, Tracey had been systematically drugging me over a period of almost two weeks before this "trust exercise", I made this fact unambiguously clear to Daniel Glick. I told him how I thought I was having some sort of a breakdown during the days and weeks leading up to Tracey's attempt to murder me. I felt like I was in a dream state; I simply had no capacity to resist her absurd suggestions.

c.      The Iowa Department Of Justice Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund paid for all of my medical expenses associated with the drugging and attempted murder.

d.     Daniel Glick has no excuse for this deliberate misrepresentation, he is in possession all documentation relating to this attempt on my life. It is simply an attempt to make me look more foolish than I actually was at the time. And to strip away any dignity or credibility that I might otherwise have.

After the separation, the couple's son and daughter lived with Tracey and her son from her first marriage, with increasingly infrequent visits from Michael. Despite having joint legal custody, Michael thought it best to move to Finland, marry another woman he'd met on the Internet, and not subject his children to the drama that often accompanies the exercising of parental rights.

LOGICAL FALLACY USED BY DANIEL GLICK:

(1)  LIE OF OMISSION

a.      LIE OF OMISSION: To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person, which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally. This includes the implying of a truth by withholding pertinent facts.

(2)  APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO (see above definition)

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT: (compounding both fallacies):

a.      Michael left the country even though he had joint legal custody of the children; therefore Michael is a bad dad and abandoned his children.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      There was much more behind this heart wrenching decision, the journalist not only omitted the crucial information, he did not even allude to its existence.

b.     Glick knows that numerous mental health professionals recommended that I distance myself physically and communicatively from my children for their own emotional wellbeing. This is because the closer I was to them the more their mother tormented them in order to estrange them from me.

c.      Although I had joint custody, in the USA I had no job prospects, no family, no friends (they scattered when Tracey harassed them) and sometimes I only had 1 or 2 nights access with the kids per fortnight, and even that was at risk of sabotage by Tracey.

d.     This was a heartbreaking decision, and it is trivialized and moreover demonized by Daniel Glick.

But things changed dramatically for the Roberts and Richter families after Tracey was arrested in mid-2011 and charged with the first-degree murder of Dustin Wehde. After a short trial, she was convicted of the charge on November 7, 2011, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The conviction occurred almost exactly 10 years after Tracey had shot her neighbour nine times with two different handguns, including at least once after the young man had been dead long enough for blood to congeal on the back of his head.

The prosecution convinced jurors that Tracey's homicidal act was an elaborate attempt to extort money from her first husband, Dr. John Pitman. According to prosecutors, Tracey had coached Wehde to write in a pink spiral notebook that Pitman wanted to have Tracey and their son Bert murdered. If Pitman were to be implicated in a murder-for-hire plot, Tracey would benefit by being able to continue drawing child support that had been put at risk by their custody fight. Wehde's death was simply collateral damage incurred in order to keep the scheme secret.

In May 2012, after Tracey's incarceration, Michael Roberts petitioned a judge in Iowa District Court to move the two children he'd had with Tracey to Australia, where he had family and better job opportunities for his computer security business. Nobody disputed that since Tracey was serving life without parole in the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women in Mitchell-ville, Michael had full physical custody of the children. But even though Tracey was incarcerated, the parents shared joint legal custody until a judge ruled otherwise. The kids could live with Michael, but Tracey still had the right to see them and to contribute to decisions about their lives.

Michael asked the judge for permission to move near his father, sister, brother and extended family in his homeland, to give his kids a shot at normalcy. The judge ruled that Michael could not take his children permanently out of the US while Tracey's case was under appeal.

Commentators around the globe berated the "female judge" who refused to let this wronged father protect his children from their Murder One mum [sic]. Michael was portrayed, particularly in the Australian and British media, as a victim of American feminist political correctness gone crazy, a father who just wanted to give his kids a normal life. Tracey's first appeal, meanwhile, was already in the works, alleging that the trial court had wrongfully suppressed key expert testimony and misinterpreted circumstantial evidence. Michael quietly took his kids to Australia anyway to start school, although the judge had instructed him that he could not move them there permanently.

LOGICAL FALLACY USED BY DANIEL GLICK:

(1)  APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO

(2)  LIE OF OMISSION

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      The judge instructed Michael not to permanently remove the children from the United States. Therefore Michael disobeyed the judge.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      I did not permanently remove the children from the United States.

b.     I temporarily move to Australia, indicated as much in all official documentation.

c.      I planned on returning immediately to the United States in the unlikely event that Tracey's appeal was successful.

d.     The children entered Australia on US passports that only allow a three-month stay in Australia.

e.      The fact is, Glick went so far as to communicate with my attorney who made it very clear that my actions avoided even the appearance of wrongdoing and were above reproach, and certainly within the four corners of the court order.

f.       To my shame my attorney warned me that Glick was “a plant” and that I was being set up. I assured my attorney that Glick was a good guy.

EVIDENCE:

---begin quote---

From: Eric Borseth

Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:51 PM

To: 'daniel@danielglick.net'

Subject: Roberts residential issues

 

Daniel,

Sorry for the delay getting back to you.

As you know the court order stated that in order to relocate the children residence the following must happen:

 

1.       Criminal appeals are done and Tracey loses

2.       She gets her three visits with the kids

 

The court didn’t say anything about traveling out of the country, just relocating their residence permanently.

My position is that Mike was acting within the law when he received the passport, because he has sole legal custody Tracey could no longer stop them, he wasn’t changing their residences permanently. He was traveling with them.

The appeal decision was made within weeks of the travel and he was then released from all restrictions.

 I hope this helps.

 

Eric Borseth

Borseth Law Office

---end quote---

If Michael appeared to be a saint to some sections of the media, in truth his life was a shambles. His Internet business was in trouble, he was mixed up with some shady characters trying to establish a cartel-like online protection racket,…

FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS USED:

(1)  ASSOCIATION FALLACY (guilt by association)

(2)  APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT [1]:

a.      Michael (and his business) had financial problems

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      My business was actually beginning to boom. I was able to pay $18,000.00 as a deposit on a trade secret sight-unseen.  I was by no means wealthy, but the business was strong enough that I was paying off debts incurred during the divorce, travelling between Europe and the USA and could afford to visit my kids monthly instead of quarterly.

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT [2]:

a.      Michael was associated with convicted felons who were establishing and online protection racket/conspiracy. Therefore, Michael must be involved in the conspiracy, and conducting criminal activities.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      I was introduced to these criminals by a third party who unbeknownst to me at the time is also a repeat offender (Darren M Meade). Thereafter, these criminals attempted a hostile takeover of my business interests.

b.     I went to law enforcement including local Sheriff's office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); I recorded conversations with the criminals and provided these to law enforcement and the media. I have worked with other victims of these criminals and authorities to bring these people to justice.

c.      I played recordings to Dan Glick of calls I made to FBI reporting the crimes.

d.     I have testified against the criminals under oath without any conditions (this is stipulated just in case someone tries to suggest I entered into a plea bargain etc.).

and he owed $US35,931.14 in back child support to an imprisoned woman. Tracey's mother, Anna, loudly accused him of complicity in Wehde's murder, while vicious web posts smeared his character.

NOTE: Recordings of what Anna Richter really thinks about her daughter can be reviewed here: VIDEO# 1 VIDEO# 2

FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS USED:

(1)  PROOF BY VERBOSITY

a.      PROOF BY VERBOSITY, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

(2)  LIE OF OMISSION

(3)  APPEAL TO THE MAJORITY OR POPULAR SENTIMENT (argumentum ad populum)

a.      APPEAL TO THE MAJORITY OR POPULAR SENTIMENT (argumentum ad populum) is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      Amongst other issues, Michael Roberts has been and is subject to vicious web posts [plural/numerous] smearing his character. Therefore, there must be some substance to the allegations.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      Daniel Glick has received testimony and evidence from myself, law enforcement and third parties that the smear campaign against me is the work of one protagonist named Darren M Meade, and to a lesser extent his employer Ed Magedson, owner of RipOffReport.com. Both of who are working in concert with the family of my ex-wife Tracey Richter for ulterior motives including attempts to gain an advantage over me in child custody issues, as well as other.

b.     Although the search results might give the impression of diverse sources of criticism, it is for the most part the work of one person.

Anna Richter had an incredibly internet-savvy supporter in her campaign against her former son-in-law. A squirrelly character called Darren Meade, the loudest and most caustic of Roberts's online critics, was a former business associate who believed that Roberts was conspiring against him and set about assassinating him online. Even today a Google search for "Michael Roberts" turns up lurid headlines about him like, "Michael Roberts Cyber-Terrorist Troll Fails Polygraph" and "Mike Roberts Child Torture and Child Pornography, Exact Recipes for the Manufacture of Liquid Explosives".

For a man building a business in the burgeoning "online reputation-management" industry, designed to help people who've become victims of online defamation, things weren't looking up.

CORRECTION: I am not an online reputation manager. I am a licensed private investigator and journalist. I track down cyber bullies who do not wish to be identified and expose their lies through logical research and investigations. I then help them to effectively answer their antagonists. In a nutshell, I attempt, in-as-much as it is possible to expose tortious deeds done in darkness in the full light of day. I do not do “spin” or PR.

It's Valentine's Day, 2013, and Michael Roberts has invited me to visit him in Australia. I pull up to see him standing in his driveway with an Australian flag because, he apologizes, his new address doesn't turn up on most GPS navigation systems.

It's a fitting metaphor for Roberts's life these days, somewhere between off the grid and on the lam. He's looking much like Mr. Mum as he ushers me through the garage into the modest rented house. He stands 178 centimeters tall, is slim and athletic, barefoot, wearing shorts and an apron, a telephone headset on top of his head and a pair of reading glasses settled atop his short-cropped hair. He has disarming blue eyes and a friendly grip.

The family is celebrating his daughter's birthday, and her cousins and uncles and aunts are arriving soon for a party. Roberts is cooking spaghetti sauce and grating parmesan cheese, pausing to put a band-aid over his index finger when a sliver of skin ends up in the bowl.

His third wife, a Finnish doctor he met on a Christian social networking site, is still in Finland, but they hope to make a new life together here. He asks that I not divulge where his new home is, acceding only to "on the east coast", because his children have assumed names at school and he believes there are people who want to kill him. "I can play you the tapes later," he says.

As he cooks, I try to unravel Roberts's Byzantine story. I've been lost in Google-land reading up on him: news reports from the original killing and the murder conviction, court records and the gyre of allegations and counter-allegations circulating on website after website about his character, his business practices, his child-support arrears, his involvement in - and extrication from - a devious internet scam. For a man in the reputation-management business who claims to be an "internet libel survivor" and who writes about himself that he is "believed to be the world's first professional internet bounty hunter", he has, as Americans like to say, some 'splaining to do.

His kids arrive home from school, hungry, and give snack orders. His daughter rolls her eyes in exasperation and explains to her dad how to make customized ramen; his son places a slab of ham between two slices of bread. There's an easy banter among the three of them. It is an unscripted scene of an attentive single dad negotiating the quotidian labyrinth of raising teens.

We meet again for breakfast the day after his daughter's birthday party and he outlines his life story. A Brisbane boy, he says he had a "thoroughly unremarkable" childhood, one of three children of a father who was a customs broker and mother who was "a clerk and mum". After high school, he started one of Queensland's first bicycle courier companies, then sold it. He planned on going to law school and clerked at the state Supreme Court, but quit to continue his entrepreneurial ventures.

Roberts married his high-school sweetheart, but it didn't last long. Around 1995, he says, he was "saved", discovering a deep-seated love for Christ, and began looking for a mate online. He "met" Tracey on one of the Internet's early dating services. Tracey's first overture to him, he says, ended with the enticing words, "I used to be a model. You won't be disappointed."

Roberts says he was put off by this carnal flirtatiousness at first, and told Tracey he was looking for a little more Christian companionship. He adds that she immediately morphed into a new, primmer form, and their conversations took on a much less secular air. A few months later, he says, she announced she was flying to Australia to meet him in the flesh. Eighteen days later they were married.

He now says there was trouble almost from the start, with Tracey having several affairs before they decided to stick it out and start a family. After their second child was born, they had some tough luck with his new IT security consulting business, Mile2. Money was tight, she blamed him, he blamed her, and eventually things fell apart after the suffocation "trust exercise".

He is clearly sheepish about this lapse of judgment, but says he was drugged at the time and suffered memory loss from near-asphyxiation, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder. He shows me what he says is evidence of the event: the torn floral sheet, the Wal-Mart receipt for the safety pins. The sheet smells of cat piss.

He has other "evidence" in his house, most of it contained atop a motorized $12,000 desk that holds three computer screens and a trove of electronic documents and audio recordings, not to mention gigabytes of sick pornography that US law-enforcement officials found on Tracey's subpoenaed hard drive and which Michael obtained in the divorce proceedings.

 

The Iowa Department of Corrections has denied my request to interview Tracey Richter in prison. Tracey's mother, Anna, sends me an email, alleging that Michael Roberts is a "con artist" and complaining that her daughter "is painted as a monster by the media".

Yet it's a wonder Tracey Richter didn't serve time earlier for any one of a number of crimes: extortion, attempted murder, welfare fraud, making false statements to government agencies. Sac County (Iowa) Attorney Ben Smith, who spearheaded her conviction a decade after Dustin Wehde's murder, tells me that Richter is "by far the most evil person I've ever encountered. Once I started looking into what she'd done, I couldn't keep up with her."

When Smith was elected as county attorney in 2010, a couple of years out of law school, investigating Dustin Wehde's death was not part of the plan. Smith had been a football star on the nearby Wall Lake View-Auburn High School team, and remembers hearing about the killing when it happened and thinking, "That's what happens when you break into somebody's house - you get shot". He started his county attorney job near his hometown, figuring he'd lead a simple life taking care of contested parking tickets and the occasional drunk driver.

Instead, while playing a video game with an Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation agent, the agent told Smith there was something fishy about Tracey's story that she was cooking lamb in preparation for her husband's return when two men broke into her house and attacked her. The agent had evidence that the story didn't add up.

Smith reopened the investigation and gathered enough evidence to arrest Richter, before his team eventually convinced jurors that Richter had concocted an elaborate plot to frame her physician ex-husband in order to collect more child support. The prosecution proved that she had wooed the neighbourhood boy over, forced him to write incriminating things in a pink spiral notebook, faked the "strangling" with pantyhose and, in cold blood, dispensed with the only adult witness to her elaborate perfidy.

During his investigation, Smith also stumbled on evidence that Richter was a serial criminal, if not a sociopath. She had accused her first husband of being a baby raper, and later accused Michael Roberts of child abuse. In between those two husbands, she seduced an oral surgeon named Joseph LaSpisa in her native Chicago by suggesting they get high together on his laughing gas, then have sex. Next she blackmailed him by threatening sexual assault charges and had him sign documents that she ultimately used for cheque fraud. Smith also uncovered a federal warrant on Tracey for falsifying information in a passport application, a guilty plea for a felony welfare fraud charge in Nebraska, and another felony conviction in Iowa for perjury on a driver's license application.

Although Smith couldn't prove Michael's claim that Tracey had tried to drug and suffocate him in 2004, he did find evidence that she had taken out several million dollars in life insurance policies on her husband. Perhaps most disturbing of all, Smith subpoenaed Richter's hard drive and found some of the most violent pornography imaginable: so-called "snuff films" where young women were apparently being killed; others where teenagers were being raped at gunpoint; mutilation fetishists. "Everywhere she goes she leaves a path of destruction," Smith says.

During the murder trial and subsequent appeals, a bizarre stream of allegations aimed at Smith emerged on the Internet. He suddenly became the target of an online character assassination attempt that included allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, witness tampering and general malfeasance. "It's difficult to quantify how vindictive she is," Smith says.

Darren Meade, the Internet assassin, spewed forth against both Smith and Roberts in semi-literate rants published on a dubious website, RipOffReport.com. Somehow, those rants vaulted to the top of any Google searches for either "Ben Smith" or "Michael Roberts".

With Meade's help, Anna Richter continued to stridently proclaim that her daughter was innocent, that Michael Roberts was involved in Dustin Wehde's murder, and that Ben Smith was complicit in the false conviction and cover-up. Those protests were judicially dispensed with when an Iowa appeals court upheld Tracey's conviction and life sentence in February this year. The state Supreme Court denied her last appeal last month.

Anna Richter's allegations that Michael is a "con artist", however, bear a little more scrutiny.

NOTE: Recordings of what Anna Richter really thinks about her daughter can be reviewed here: VIDEO# 1 VIDEO# 2

FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS USED:

(1)  APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      On whose authority do Anna’s allegations bear up under scrutiny? After knowing what we do about the article so far, can we really trust the author to determine who or what bears scrutiny?

b.     Anna Richter is a perjurer and is also a desperate mother trying desperately to get her daughter off a murder rap.

c.      Anna Richter’s recorded phone calls demonstrate her views of her daughter Tracey Richter.

In his rented home strewn with camping gear, Michael Roberts has screen shots of every malicious post Darren Meade and others have made about him, and calls Meade a "paid reputation hit man". (Meade, in turn, claims that Roberts has threatened to kill him.) The business Roberts now runs, Rexxfield, describes itself as a "specialist in combating online defamation". He explains how he can track where an email goes by embedding a little bit of code in it and sending it from a unique address. It's similar to the tracking technology that advertising companies use every day, and it's good for private or criminal investigations and for identifying anonymous bloggers and cyber-stalkers.

He walks me through his travails since he divorced Tracey in 2008, focusing on a deal gone bad with a man named Matthew Cooke, who offered to sell him an "injection source code" known as the "cool technique" that would allow him to hack into third-party websites and help clients remove damaging posts - for a fee. This use of invasive code is illegal, but that didn't stop Michael Roberts from trying to buy it. (He claims it falls into a legal "grey area", but admits he shouldn't have entered this shady terrain.)

LOGICAL FALLACY USED BY GLICK:

(1)  MISLEADING STATEMENT (LIE)

(2)  LIE OF OMISSION

(3)  ASSOCIATION FALLACY (guilt by association)

(4)  APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      The argument does not need explanation in this instance the context and insinuations by Daniel Glick are clear in the above paragraph.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      Matthew Cooke did not ever offer to sell me a "injection source code". He offered to sell me a technique that could render fallacious and malicious complaints posted on RipOffReport.com invisible to search engines (I have talked people out of committing suicide because of this horrendous website).

b.     This was a trade secret sale and Cooke did not reveal the specifics to me or my staff until after I paid a significant deposit ($18k). Furthermore, the purchase agreement was drawn up by attorneys, the revelation of the technical aspects of this technique were transferred at the attorneys office AFTER PAYMENT.

c.      Evidently, the technique is possibly considered hacking by legal definition today, at the time it was certainly a gray area.

d.     I am neither a coder or a programmer, I have no experience in these technologies, I'm simply an analyst and an investigator.

e.      Although I was slow to accept the fact that the technique is illegal, I did not finalize the deal and I reported the details to the Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI). Daniel Glick heard the voicemail messages that I left for the digital forensic special agent at the FBI.  My innocence (albeit peppered with ignorant stupidity) is evidenced by a diverse collection of documents and audio recordings, all of which have been provided to Daniel Glick by third parties and myself. This paragraph twists numerous facts, confusing the reader into drawing inaccurate conclusions.

Desperate to make some money, Roberts agreed to buy Cooke's "cool technique", then tried to negotiate the use of this technique with a serial white-collar criminal named Adam Zuckerman, who was subsequently convicted of a different financial fraud. Zuckerman, in turn, planned to use the technique in an elaborate online protection racket.

FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS USED:

(1)  MISLEADING STATEMENT (LIE)

(2)  LIE OF OMISSION

(3)  ASSOCIATION FALLACY (guilt by association)

(4)  APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      The argument does not need explanation in this instance the context and insinuations by Daniel Glick are clear in the above paragraph.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      "Desperate to make some money" gives cause for innuendo. When in fact I was "desperate to focus on my children" and wanted to sell my business assets so that I could do so.

b.     My negotiations with Progenex, the company that I later learned was controlled by Adam Zuckerman, were not commenced until after my introduction to Matthew Cooke.

c.      I never “agreed to buy Cooke's ‘cool technique’"; I paid a deposit sight-unseen but then defaulted on the payment schedule while trying to ascertain its legality (and because the Zuckerman crew cleaned out my corporate accounts and began threatening me).

d.     Admittedly, I did string Cooke along due to the $18K investment, hoping I could get the all-clear on “cool technique’s” legality, or in the alternative, a refund because contracts for illegal items are not binding.

e.      I never mentioned the existence of the "cool technique" to Adam Zuckerman.

f.       Zuckerman discovered “cool technique” through his own research when he discovered Bruce Anderson’s website who I had recently fired. Bruce was present when Cooke explained the “cool technique” and was overtly advertising RipOffReport.com takedown services through his own business, while I was investigating its legality.

g.      Bruce Anderson was responsible for my introduction to Matthew Cooke. It was later learned that they had a preexisting relationship

h.     At this time I still was unsure as to its legality, hence my withholding the information. I was only attempting to sell the Rexxfield brand and other intellectual property associated with it, not cool technique. Things fell apart after Zuckerman discovered its existence and saw its potential. This is when I finally saw his true colors.

i.       At this time I did not know Zuckerman was a serial criminal, he had been presented to me by what appeared to be credible third parties as a "Robin Hood" that made a mistake in a "gray area" with financial laws in his youth.

j.       Paul Portelli discovered Zuckerman’s extensive criminal record only AFTER I had singed a contract to negotiate in good faith with Zuckerman’s squeaky-clean front man Ryape Page.

k.     Zuckerman was presented to me as a consultant for the company "Progenex". Not as a principal. His name was never on any contracts or proposals.

l.       These facts were also conveyed to Daniel Glick by witness Paul Portelli as laid out below.

According to Roberts, Zuckerman set up "boiler rooms" with employees trolling the Internet for customer complaints against tradesmen, professionals and businesses. His team would amplify these online complaints with additional grievances, get them posted on "consumer advocate" sites, then offer to make these problems disappear - for a fee. An additional "reputation maintenance fee" could keep them disappeared. Zuckerman soon went after a doctor named A. Scott Connelly, and Roberts urges me to contact Connelly, both as a character reference and as a fellow victim of Internet character assassination.

LOGICAL FALLACY USED BY DAN GLICK:

(1)  CONSPICUOUS OMISSION

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      The argument does not need explanation.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      Journalist Daniel Glick omits the fact that Adam Zuckerman and his boiler rooms were not set up until long after my introduction and extrication from his nest of vipers.  Glick was privy to these facts when he wrote these passages.

b.     The inspiration for these boiler rooms and the associated extortion rackets did come from his introduction to me and his scrutiny of my legitimate business model. However, Zuckerman modified his variant of my business model to include the creation of negative material against individuals and then sell them mitigation services, a classic shakedown. Whereas my business model is simply to catch the people who created defamatory, harassing or extortive materials.

c.      The above paragraph seems to imply to the reader that I was attempting to align myself with a going concern controlled by criminals.

I meet A. Scott Connelly in Los Angeles in a nondescript industrial office building a stone's throw from John Wayne Airport in Orange County. Connelly, a multimillionaire physician, businessman and Vietnam War veteran, founded the nutritional supplement company Met-Rx, then sold it for $US108 million in 2000. He was looking to finance another nutritional product with a company called Progenex when he met a man named Adam Stuart, who promised $US5 million in financing for Connelly's venture, and they negotiated a deal. Connelly didn't know that Adam Stuart was really Adam Zuckerman, who had already been convicted of making criminal threats. (Zuckerman is now in prison for masterminding a fraudulent business loan scheme the FBI dubbed "Operation Lease Fleece".)

Zuckerman then hired Darren Meade as CEO of the new Progenex deal, Connelly's brainchild. Meade, not coincidentally, had previously worked for Connelly at Met-Rx, a relationship that ended badly in court.

Connelly is a giant, gruff man prone to making unembellished characterizations of his nemeses. "Zuckerman is a troll," he tells me. "Meade is insane." Like Michael Roberts, Connelly has reams of documentation to show he was a victim of misrepresentation, then "vexatious litigation", then online reputation assassination. When Zuckerman threatened to sue Connelly over a contract dispute, Connelly said, "Please do. I would love to get you into court to expose you for the scumbag you are." Instead, Connelly sued Zuckerman, supplying the court with emails allegedly sent by Zuckerman where he threatened a foe with the following: "I'll pay a staff of 10 people to proliferate the internet with pictures of you f...ing a donkey, drunk." (Connelly's suit is pending as Zuckerman serves his prison time.)

In Connelly's office I also meet 29-year-old IT nerd Paul Portelli, who wears a classic sports car driver's hat and knows all these characters first-hand. Portelli says he first met Michael Roberts in Las Vegas, where Roberts was negotiating a deal with a former Florida Sheriff's deputy named Bruce Anderson and Matthew Cooke, a Colorado-based computer programmer. Portelli attended many of these meetings after Roberts asked Portelli to work for him. Cooke was selling a way to breach websites and change the way that search engines could find them. This so-called "cool technique", this one was based on a Structured Query Language or SQL. SQL is a standard programming language for managing databases, but if it's injected into somebody's website without their permission and for profit, it's illegal. SQL injections are often used in website identity theft and other cyber-attacks.

LOGICAL FALLACY USED BY DAN GLICK:

(1)  MISLEADING STATEMENT (LIE)

(2)  LIE OF OMISSION

(3)  ASSOCIATION FALLACY (guilt by association)

(4)  APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      The argument does not need explanation as it is clearly stated.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      The paragraph is constructed in such a way that the reader might perceive that Paul made this statement, whereas the entire last sentence is fiction by the journalist.

b.     “Cool Technique IS NOT SQL INJECTION! This is why I considered it a grey area. I never received a definitive answer, but the question became moot due to the Meade/Zuckerman hostile takeover attempts and my publishing the existence of the technique in order to stop Zuckerman using it in his extortion racket.

Portelli says that he was literally kicking Roberts under the table when Cooke was making his presentation, warning him that the project was akin to someone implanting cancer in you, then offering to remove it….

LOGICAL FALLACY USED BY DAN GLICK:

(1)  MISLEADING STATEMENT (LIE)              

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT (his lie):

a.      The argument does not need explanation as it is clearly stated.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      Paul was kicking me under the table, but it was after I had paid a deposit for the rights to but the trade secret without knowledge of its execution.  We had extensive discussions in private after this meeting trying to work out how to salvage the situation, whether to kill the deal, or to try and get third-party opinions about the technique. Paul was extremely concerned, and had I listened to him I would’ve killed the deal much sooner. Hindsight has 20/20 vision.

b.      To the professional opinions obtained, I had one white-hat hacker (good guy who has one contests at the international www.blackhat.com conventions) told me that the technique was not illegal, and another advise that it is “grey”.

c.      The subsequent introduction of Darren M Meade and Adam Zuckerman compounded the situation, after they stole Rexxfield cash assets and disrupted business I would have been unable to complete the purchase, even if I had decided to step into the grey area.

d.     In response to Daniel Glick’s article, Paul stated that he does not believe he used the cancer analogy.

e.      HOWEVER, I personally used the cancer metaphor during my discussions with Daniel Glick. Glick did not attribute the quote to me, thereby avoiding the fact that I looked at the whole affair myself as something deeply toxic.

But Roberts saw big commercial possibilities for his budding "reputation management" company, Rexxfield. If he owned the proprietary keys to a code that could infiltrate a website that was publishing questionable or scurrilous information about people, it could be a very valuable asset.

LOGICAL FALLACY USED BY DAN GLICK:

(1)  APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      Daniel Glick is implying that:

                                      i.     I knew the technique was illegal

                                     ii.     That I intended to use an illegal hacking technique for prospective financial gain

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      See previous problem description.

b.     More than 80% of my work has been pro bono (free). I have dedicated my recent professional life to exposing Ed Magedson and his appalling business RipOffReport.com for what many lawyers and victims have described as an extortion racket. My intent, had I decided to use it, was to help victims who were vocationally, socially, financially and emotionally paralyzed by the 24/7 attack on their livelihood and reputation buy the despicable website.

Roberts and Cooke arrived at terms and signed an exclusive access agreement in October 11, 2010. "Michael was an enthusiastic participant," says Portelli, shaking his capped head in disappointment.

LOGICAL FALLACY USED BY DAN GLICK:

(1)  MISLEADING STATEMENT (LIE)

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      The argument does not need explanation as it is clearly stated.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      Paul has denied saying this and will testify to the same.

b.     The October 11 contract was a sham, it described a red herring trade secret that loosely resembled the actual technique, but with carefully crafted ambiguities to describe the true nature enough to convince me to pay the $18,000 deposit.

c.      In the trade secret agreement the “cool technique” for which I paid in $18,000 deposit was described as follows:
‘SELLER agrees to transfer certain trade secrets as to methods and techniques which when executed usually result is the removal of negative internet postings from the top 20 search results in Google's search engine results for the following websites for the purpose of achieving satisfactory search engine rankings for the BUYER’s clients: RipOffReport.com …’

d.     Whereas, in reality the “cool technique” removed the results completely from search engine results. The reference to removal from “the top 20 search results” was a red herring to make it appear that the trade secret was a SEO technique as opposed to what it actually is.

Roberts then met with several of Zuckerman's business associates, and eventually with Zuckerman himself, says Portelli. Over the course of several meetings, Zuckerman learnt that Michael Roberts hadn't completely paid off the cool technique contract, decided he could ace Roberts out of the deal, and did. Zuckerman browbeat Roberts into believing that their contract had effectively been breached, and Roberts soon realised he had played his cards badly with a much more ruthless gamesman. He lost his $18,000 "cool technique" deposit and didn't even try to recoup it.

LOGICAL FALLACY USED BY DAN GLICK:

(1)  APOPHASIS AND ARGUMENT BY INNUENDO

(2)  CONNOTATION FALLACY

Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for the speaker's actual quote and used to discredit the argument.

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      Daniel Glick is implying that:

                                  i.         I am ruthless

                                ii.         That Paul implied I am ruthless (Connotation fallacy)

                               iii.         That I intended to complete the sale with Cooke and the only reason I did not was because of Zuckerman.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      Paul made no such imputation

b.     I had finally seen the light and adopted Paul’s opinion about the technique as my own, although I could still argue the “grey”. i.e I could argue that it was hacking and that it was not based on opinions from different experts (Paul is not an expert, although he is very insightful)

c.      It would be an exercise in futility to chase $18,000 in the United States, the most litigious country in the world; where legal fees are not recoverable. Although I do have the option of mediation in the purchase agreement.

Only after Roberts was kicked to the curb, according to Portelli and Connelly, did he see the light and try to bring down Zuckerman and Meade. "Michael was not only a willing partner, but was looking forward to a future with these sociopaths," says Connelly. So much for a character reference.

LOGICAL FALLACY USED BY DAN GLICK:

(1)  MISLEADING STATEMENT (LIE)

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      That Paul stated that my cooperation with bringing down Zuckerman was “only” in response to Zuckerman’s betrayal of me.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      Paul made no such statement.

(2)  FALLACY OF FALSE CAUSE
Definition - Fallacy Of False Cause (or non sequitur): incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      That I only blew the whistle (the effect) on Adam Zuckerman because he betrayed me (the cause).

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      No credible witness has or can testify to the assertion, Paul denies it, and Dr. Connelly is not a credible witness in this issue as outlined below.

b.     I am a corporate crime fighter; I report crimes when I discover them.

c.      My delay in “seeing the light” might seem unreasonable under normal circumstances, but mitigating circumstances include:

                                               i.     Emotional exhaustion from custody battles.

                                              ii.     Distraction due to ex-wife’s murder trial and attacks against my family and me.

                                            iii.     Single-minded focus on my children.

                                            iv.     I was living between Europe and USA for personal safety (as advised by law enforcement), i.e. not having finger on the pulse continuously.

                                              v.     I finally accepted that Zuckerman & his crew were criminals when the group’s controller Luke Ernest Adams stole thousands of dollars from my corporate PayPal account and diverted it to another conspirator.

(3)  APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      That Dr. Connelly is speaking from a position of authority, and that he stated that my cooperation with bringing down Zuckerman was “only” in response to Zuckerman’s betrayal of me.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.      Dr. Connelly has not denied or confirmed making the statement (update will follow).

b.     Neither Paul nor myself had any contact whatsoever with Dr. Connelly until AFTER we realized that Adam Zuckerman is the monster that he is. After realizing that Dr. Connelly was a victim like myself, Paul initiated contact with him and invited me after the fact.

a.      Dr. Connelly was not a witness to any events prior to this time; even if he did utter the statement alleged by Glick, it would be without any direct knowledge and should be dismissed as either hearsay or baseless opinion. Dr. Connelly was not a witness in any way do my early relationship with Darren M Meade, Progenex and its puppeteer Adam Zuckerman.

c.      Paul is the only reliable witness to the events alleged by journalist Daniel Glick, and Paul has refuted Glick’s assertions.

(4)  VICTIM BLAMING (Assuming Dr. Connelly did in fact make the statement)

a.      Victim Blaming occurs when the victim(s) of a crime, an accident, or any type of abusive maltreatment are held entirely or partially responsible for the transgressions committed against them (regardless of whether the victim actually had any responsibility for the incident).

b.     A common example is where a woman might be raped in a deserted alleyway that is known for habitation by sexual predators. A local who already has experience and firsthand knowledge of these facts then blames the woman’s choice as the cause. In this case, Dr. Connelly had first-hand experience with the Zuckerman crew and is presuming that I should have known better; therefore I must be a willing participant in their crimes. Whereas, my desire was to be a willing participant in legitimate business as presented to me by Darren Meade and his partners.

(5)  APPEAL TO SPITE

a.      a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party

(6)  SLIPPERY SLOPE (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose)

a.      Asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen.

NOTE: Dr. Connelly has neither confirmed nor denied making this statement. If he did not make this statement the logical fallacy fall back on Daniel Glick as a lie. If Dr. Connelly did in fact make the statement than the logical fallacy falls upon Dr. Connelly’s shoulders. That being the case, Dr. Connelly's problem would then be that:

a.      Dr. Connelly has an emotional bias because he insisted that I essentially devote my life and time too putting Adam Zuckerman in jail.

b.     He was disappointed that I pursued normalcy and piece and stability with my family. Unlike Dr. Connelly, I am not wealthy and I am not an empty-nester. Instead, I decided to help him in his zealous pursuit of Zuckerman on the periphery, rather than as an obsession.

c.      Connelly's assertion if truly attributed to him should be dismissed as an emotional outburst because we have been working together for almost two years against the Zuckerman crew. Albeit without much progress thanks to apathy on the part of law enforcement.

d.     Dr. Connelly's propensity for emotionally charged rhetoric is supported by Daniel Glick's introduction of his character into this article “Connelly is a giant, gruff man prone to making unembellished characterizations of his nemeses [Zuckerman].”

CLARIFICATION: I admire Dr. Connelly's commitment to justice, which is evidenced by what he claims to be a $2 million plus investment into the investigation. I also understand if he feels that sympathy for me should be minimized because of the decisions I made, albeit without the benefit of the hindsight Dr. Connelly already possessed due to his previous dealings with Zuckerman. Notwithstanding, his alleged assertion should be considered within the greater context of thruth, which is deliberately deficient in Daniel Glick's expression via his article.

(7)  POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster

(8)  ASSOCIATION FALLACY

a.      (See above)

(9)  HASTY CONCLUSION (or Jumping to a Conclusion)

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      That the future I was looking forward to included criminal activities.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM

a.      Whereas, the future I was looking forward to was based on what was presented to me in the guise of legitimate business relationships. This is evidenced by numerous credible character references, including court witnesses in several court cases who testified under the penalty of perjury. Dr. Scott Connelly although credible in other matters is not a witness to the assertion.

Michael Roberts knows that he hasn't always looked like the brightest pixel on the HD screen. Yet he speaks earnestly about the problems that people like Meade and Zuckerman will cause if they can blackmail people with manufactured slander, then offer "services" to remove that slander by illicit hacking codes. Michael now calls himself a "professional crimefighter" with more than 300 Facebook profiles, so he can "work where law enforcement isn't working".

Just when Roberts starts making his case for reformed legitimacy, …

LOGICAL FALACIES USED:

(1)  BEGGING THE QUESTION

a.      Demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.       “Michael starts making his case for reformed legitimacy”

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEMS

a.      The premise and the conclusion have the same meaning. In this case he suggest that:

                                               i.     I am not legitimate, and

                                              ii.     That at some point I had confessed to previously not being legitimate

b.     If one has already accepted the premise, there is no need to reason to the conclusion.

c.      Whereas:

                                               i.     I have never suggested that I have acted without legitimacy

                                              ii.     The only people who have suggested illegitimacy on my part have been impeached by either juries, judges or their own lies exposed (including the journalist Daniel Glick)

                                            iii.     The only thing I have admitted to is stupidity, and even then under extremely tumultuous mitigating circumstances.

however, he falls back into more dubious territory, asking me if I've heard about the "contrails" scandal in America - a widely discredited conspiracy theory involving chemical companies and a secret plan to create greater demand for bioengineered foods. …

LOGICAL FALACIES USED:

(1)  MISLEADING STATEMENT (LIE)

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT (the Lie):

a.      Glick implies that I wholeheartedly embrace conspiracy theories about “Chemtrails”

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEMS

a.      Glick indicated that he lived in Colorado; somehow we got onto the subject of conspiracy theories. I once watched part of a documentary called “WHAT ON EARTH ARE THEY SPRAYING” and recalled a reference to polluted ponds in the Rockies. I simply asked for Glick’s thoughts on the issue, as the documentary seemed plausible, although fantastic.

MOTIVES:

a.      Glick needs to “pad” his story with jibes and jabs to systematically discredit my character and inteligence in order to bolster the flimsy assertions.

…He then emphasizes that he agrees with the "young Earth" theory, which is Christian fundamentalist shorthand for not believing in paleontology or geology or the physics of radioactive decay that establish the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years, give or take.

LOGICAL FALACIES USED:

(1)  Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy)

a.      Refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning. i.e

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.      “Michael does not believe in paleontology or geology or the physics of radioactive decay..."

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEMS

a.      The fact is, I do “believe in” each of the quoted disciplines; I simply have different interpretations than Glick based on my observations of the evidence. Not only do I believe in them, I have studied them extensively albeit informally.

b.     Whereas, I used to be a rabid atheist and intended to disprove God through these fields of study amongst others.

c.      Unfortunately for the atheist in me, my investigations left me with more questions than answers. Moreover, I found God waiting for me at the end of every line of inquiry.

d.     My spiritual beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the matters at hand.

Daniel Glick employed numerous fallacious arguments in his attacks against me based on my Christian worldview. I will cover them in a brief bullet point list in interest of brevity:

(2)  APPEAL TO RIDICULE – Glick presents me in a way that makes me appear ridiculous

(3)  ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – Glick cannot imagine how creation could be true, therefore it must be false.

(4)  ARGUMENT FROM FALLACY – Glick assumes that the argument for creation is fallacious; therefore the conclusion itself is false.

(5)  ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) - Glick assumes that creation is false because he thinks it has not been proven true or cannot be proven true.

(6)  ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (Personal Attack)- Glick evades the actual topic by directing the attack at me through irrelevant issues.

(7)  BURDEN OF PROOF (related to – onus probandi) – Glick needs not prove his claim, I must prove evolution is false.

(8)  CIRCULAR REASONING – Glick begins with what he is trying to end up with: “Creation is ridiculous because creation is ridiculous”.

(9)  CORRELATION PROVES CAUSATION (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. In this case "Michael is not credible because he is a creationist and creationism is not credible”.

(10)                 FALSE DILEMMA (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more. “A person is either credible or a creationist”

(11)                 JUDGMENTAL LANGUAGE – Glick uses insulting or pejorative language against me to influence the reader's judgment

(12)                 KETTLE LOGIC – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.

(13)                 MIND PROJECTION FALLACY – Glick believes that the way he sees the world is the way the world really is.

(14)                 ONUS PROBANDI – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy; here the burden is for me to prove that a biblical worldview and illegitimacy are not mutually exclusive.

(15)                 PSYCHOLOGIST'S FALLACY – Glick presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing my behavior.

(16)                 RED HERRING – Glick attempts to distract the reader by deviating from the topic at hand. Come on Dan! Really, what does creationism have to do with your hacking allegations against me?

(17)                 SHOTGUN ARGUMENTATION - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them.

NOTE: Creationists (at least the critical thinkers amongst us) are not so much interested in debunking radiocarbon dating as we are in developing a proper understanding of it to answer many of our own questions regarding the past. At the present time it appears that the conventional radiocarbon dating technique is on relatively firm ground, but only for dates, which fall within the past 3,000 years. For periods of time prior to this, there are legitimate reasons to question the validity of the conventional results and seek for alternative interpretations.

I ask him if he thinks he should have caught on to Tracey Richter's epic perfidy quicker, whether he wasn't more than just a little slow to realize he was hopping into business with some really nasty cyber-gangsters, whether there's an irony in the fact that he's been trampled at his own game of reputation management. He admits he "foolishly consented" to Tracey's trust exercise. "And I really should have listened to Paul [Portelli] sooner," he tells me, hangdog.

LOGICAL FALACIES USED:

(1)  Thought-terminating cliché (“hangdog”)

a.      A commonly used phrase, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.

                                               i.     hang·dog (h ng dôg, -d g) adj. 1. Shamefaced or guilty. 2. Downcast; intimidated. n. A sneaky or despicable person.

(2)  MISLEADING VIVIDNESS

a.      Describing an occurrence in vivid detail, to convince someone that it is a problem

(3)  MISLEADING STATEMENT (LIE)

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT (The Lie):

a.      That Daniel Glick initiated the questions; cornering me so-to-speak.

b.     That I am sheepish and ashamed about my mistakes.

DANIEL GLICK’S PROBLEM:

a.       I did not say that I “foolishly consented” to Tracy’s trust exercise, at least not in the context presented by Glick. The fact that I had been drugged a matter of public record and well documented. Glick has in his possession all of the documentation relating to this attempt on my life.

b.     It is unfortunate that the journalist would describe drug-induced manipulation as “consent” by the victim.

c.      My confessions of stupid or ignorant decisions made out of emotional exhaustion, drugging/poisoning or financial distress were given to Glick, moreover they are. He did not solicit the answers as stated in this paragraph.

d.     I have never hidden my mistakes as evidenced by my other interviews, my writings and court documents.

e.      I have spoken openly about my mistakes and it is my desire to help others to learn by these mistakes.

MOTIVE: Glick needs to claim the initiative and get look as if I’m trying to hide something; otherwise readers would be more sympathetic to me if I admit my mistakes.

(4)  PROOF BY VERBOSITY

a.      PROOF BY VERBOSITY

DANIEL GLICK’S ARGUMENT:

a.   None! No allegations are actually made in this paragraph, yet the natural conclusion of this passage is I am a fool and that without  (remove: Glick’s) the reporter’s investigative insight, the fact would not come to the surface.

As he walks me to my car, he says, "Go gentle with me. I used to be stupid, but I'm not stupid any more."

CORRECTION:  I actually said:

"Go gentle with me. I used to be stupid, but I'm not AS stupid any more."

I am not so grandiose as to think I cannot be fooled, conned or make bad judgment calls. Ironically, my submitting to this interview with journalist Dan Glick evidences this fact.

 

--- END Authorized Statement ---

 

Media Inquiries:

Journalist Inquiry Form

 

Journalist Daniel Glick Ethical Breaches & Lies

ETHICS ALERT: Before You Interview With Daniel Glick Journalist, Beware of The Story Group