Continental Properties,Builders, Eric Goldring Esq.Attorney, John Boyle, Judge Builder, Attorney, Judge and MORE, Racketeering, ...where's the US Attorney? Red Bank New Jersey, Woodbridge, Union County, NJ New Jersey

Face the facts, Eric. We live in a global economy now. We are no longer dealing with the five-and-dime down the street, where in such situation neighborhood "word of mouth" could alert potential consumers to potential problems.

RoR fills that void by allowing consumers to post their experiences with various companies, and by ensuring that these complaints get high billing on search engines.

But RoR goes beyond that . . . it also allows satisfied customers, employees, and owners of companies to contest the statements made in the original report, thereby allowing the consumer to get the full story. As such, RoR serves a hugely important purpose. Without it and other sites like it, it would be virtually impossible for potential consumers to get an actual consumer's viewpoint of how the company operates.

Further, as the owner of the company, you are given the opportunity to have your response to the complaint appear contemporaneously with the complaint itself, whereas with the five-and-dime example, mom and pop didn't have such a luxury.

You filed a rebuttal that certainly made me think twice about the validity of the report. Why you waited so long to do so is beyond me. But the fact remains that you were given the opportunity, and you should be thankful for it.

As far as the propriety of retaining a known false report, you are dead wrong. First, RoR barely has the resources to keep this ship afloat, it certainly does not have the resources to inquire into the validity of each and every complaint. That is why you are given the opportunity to rebut.

Further, the law is on the side of RoR. So long as the site merely provides a forum, there is no violation on the part of the site operators by allowing for postings, even if they are false. If said operators "know" the report to be false, that's another story, but a he-said she-said battle in no way validates or invalidates the report.

The fact is that this report is simply false. For years I have seen this report posted and maintained as priority on various search engines. If the Ripoff Report wishes to have any credibility it should assure this site utilized for truthful complaints and concerns. By permitting posts such as hers to remain and to be given priority on search engines it is doing a great disservice.

Without violating any confidentiality constraints, suffice it to say her claims were rejected by the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, then the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division and then the Supreme Court of New Jersey. In each instance her claims were found to be meritless and, in fact, that she had voluntarily and willingly, with full knowledge and understanding, entered into a settlement which essentially fully compensated her.