Discover Top Posts Tagged with #digitalprivacyrights

THE MADIN REPORT

A survivor-led dossier of reputational harm, legal precedent, and institutional failure.

Formal Advisory and Public Notice Regarding the Conduct of Kent Holman Madin of Bozeman, Montana

This notice is issued pursuant to applicable data protection and privacy laws, including the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), and in accordance with international regulatory mandates. It highlights serious concerns regarding Mr. Madin’s conduct as investigated under legal frameworks governing data misuse, reputational harm, and digital rights.

The documentation presented herein reflects survivor-led testimony, institutional correspondence, and legal precedent. It is published in good faith for the purpose of public education, civic clarity, and ethical accountability.

Welcome to The Madin Report A survivor-led dossier documenting reputational harm, legal precedent, and institutional failure.

This archive exists to document a sustained pattern of reputational harm and digital targeting involving Kent Madin. It is authored by Rip Davenport, survivor memoirist, endurance explorer, and public educator—whose unsupported movement and legal clarity thread meaning through silence.

This is not a personal attack. It is a public record grounded in legal findings, institutional correspondence, and lived experience. The documentation here reflects the survivor’s right to speak, to educate, and to reclaim narrative space.

If you’ve arrived here by curiosity, concern, or search, stay. Read. Reflect. This site is built on truth, not retaliation.

Disclaimer: This site is non-commercial, survivor-authored, and intended for public education. It does not impersonate, monetize, or defame. All content is presented in good faith, supported by legal precedent, correspondence, and personal testimony. The author reserves the right to document harm, clarify institutional failure, and contribute to public understanding.

Introduction

Kent Holman Madin, based in Bozeman, Montana, stands accused of orchestrating a prolonged and systematic campaign of digital malfeasance spanning over fourteen years.

His documented conduct constitutes a profound breach of legal and ethical boundaries, including deliberate violations of GDPR through unauthorized harvesting and global dissemination of personal data.

He has weaponized victims’ identities by illicitly registering domain names that mimic or contain their names, effectively committing identity theft and cybersquatting, to perpetuate an aggressive and relentless cyber harassment campaign.

His actions encompass willful infringement and manipulation of copyrighted content, along with the strategic distortion of search engine results to amplify defamatory and damaging narratives.

Employing multiple fabricated identities, Madin has extracted confidential information and relentlessly targeted not only his direct victims but also their families, associates, and professional networks, inflicting widespread and enduring harm.

His documented activities include:

Key Alleged Legal Violations:

GDPR Violations: Unauthorized collection, storage, and dissemination of personal data belonging to EU citizens.

Identity Misuse: Registering domain names containing or resembling victims’ names without consent, constituting potential identity theft and cybersquatting.

Defamation: Spreading harmful and unverified information intended to damage reputations.

Cyberstalking and Harassment: Persistent online harassment of individuals, including targeting their family members, social circles, and employers.

Fraudulent Representation: Use of false identities to obtain private or confidential information.

Search Engine Manipulation: Attempting to distort online search results to amplify defamatory content.

Reported to:

Australian Government E-Safety Commission.

Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY).

FBI.

Law enforcement in France, Ireland, the USA, Australia, and Sweden.

Impact:

Hundreds of individuals and businesses worldwide adversely affected.

Over 14 years of documented harassment, cyberstalking, and abuse.

Google has de-indexed multiple domains linked to Madin in Australia and all 27 EU member states due to serious GDPR policy violations.

This record reflects a sustained and coordinated campaign of digital misconduct that demands public awareness and accountability.

IMY ruling can be read here:

https://pdfhost.io/v/DPNy9vcN6M_Swedish_Authority_for_Privacy_Protection__IMY__rules_Kent_Madin_s_website_be_removed_from_Google__EU

https://pdfhost.io/v/cBGDBMLd4Z_Swedish_Authority_for_Privacy_Protection__IMY__rules_against_Kent_Madin_of_Bozeman__Montana

External academic work related to Digital Identity Integrity and online behaviour can be found on my Academia profile:

https://independentresearcher.academia.edu/RipDavenport

Investigative Journalism and Ethical Boundaries

Kent Madin states on his LinkedIn account that he is a “successful investigative journalist.” However, such a claim alone does not establish legitimacy or credibility.

What defines a bona fide investigative journalist?

Professional Standards: Adherence to established ethical journalism practices, including rigorous fact-checking and safeguarding of sources.

Affiliation: Employment or collaboration with recognized media organizations, or demonstrable and verifiable experience in the field.

Methodology: Use of lawful and ethical techniques to uncover information that serves the public interest.

Transparency: Openness about methods and sources, where possible, coupled with accountability for errors or inaccuracies.

The unauthorized appropriation and use of an individual’s name to register websites or online platforms with the deliberate intent to defame constitutes a manifest and egregious breach of fundamental ethical obligations incumbent upon investigative journalists.

These obligations, enshrined in authoritative frameworks such as the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics and the International Federation of Journalists’ Declaration of Principles, include strict adherence to truthfulness, respect for individual privacy, and a duty to avoid causing harm.

Such conduct not only violates these professional standards but also inflicts substantial and unjustifiable harm to the affected individual’s reputation, personal dignity, and professional standing.

This behavior may further expose the perpetrator to legal liability under defamation, privacy, and intellectual property laws.

Why is this distinction important?

Assuming the title of investigative journalist without the requisite skills, ethics, or accountability can facilitate the spread of misinformation, harassment, or biased reporting. Some may misuse the designation to intimidate, intrude, or further personal agendas without professional oversight.

https://pdfhost.io/v/DPNy9vcN6M_Swedish_Authority_for_Privacy_Protection__IMY__rules_Kent_Madin_s_website_be_removed_from_Google__EU

https://pdfhost.io/v/cBGDBMLd4Z_Swedish_Authority_for_Privacy_Protection__IMY__rules_against_Kent_Madin_of_Bozeman__Montana

External academic work related to Digital Identity Integrity and online behaviour can be found on my Academia profile:https://independentresearcher.academia.edu/RipDavenport

GDPR Violations

Google Ordered to Remove Malicious Search Results Involving Kent Madin Across the European Union

Kent Madin, a resident of Bozeman, Montana, former Honorary Consul of Mongolia for the Northern Rockies, and founder of Boojum, is implicated in a documented case of reputational harm and unauthorized data dissemination. Following a formal complaint filed in Sweden, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY) investigated Google LLC’s handling of search results linked to a website containing personal data and defamatory content targeting a U.S. citizen.

IMY’s investigation found that Google failed to comply with the complainant’s request to delist specific URLs under the GDPR’s “right to be forgotten.” These URLs appeared in search results for the complainant’s full name and linked to a site hosting sensitive personal information without valid consent.

Google’s handling of this data was found to violate multiple GDPR provisions:

Article 17: Failure to erase personal data without undue delay

Article 9: Processing sensitive personal data without a lawful basis

Article 10: Processing data related to criminal offenses without authorization

Under Article 58(2)(d) of the GDPR, IMY ordered Google to remove the specified search results across all services accessible in Sweden and the European Union. Google was required to comply within two weeks of the enforcement date: May 25, 2022.

In its ruling, IMY described Google’s actions as “grave violations” of GDPR consent requirements and emphasized that such practices must “cease immediately.”

A full 10-page legal document from the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection’s lawyers is here:

https://pdfhost.io/v/DPNy9vcN6M_Swedish_Authority_for_Privacy_Protection__IMY__rules_Kent_Madin_s_website_be_removed_from_Google__EU

https://pdfhost.io/v/cBGDBMLd4Z_Swedish_Authority_for_Privacy_Protection__IMY__rules_against_Kent_Madin_of_Bozeman__Montana

External academic work related to Digital Identity Integrity and online behaviour can be found on my Academia profile:

https://independentresearcher.academia.edu/RipDavenport

In Europe, He’d Face Prison. In Montana He Types Freely.

If this had all taken place in Europe, things would look very different.

In Sweden, for example, there’s a law in the penal code: Brottsbalken (Chapter 4, Section 6b), that deals specifically with unlawful identity use. In plain English, that means registering or using someone else’s name online without consent. It’s a criminal offence. Not a slap on the wrist. A conviction could mean up to two years in prison.

Move across to the UK or Ireland, and you find a similar net. Both have offences like harassment and malicious communications. If you send or publish material designed to cause distress, alarm, or reputational damage, it’s a crime. And we’re not talking about fines or warnings, sentences can stretch to five years behind bars.

Then there’s the heavyweight: GDPR. Most people think GDPR is just about annoying cookie banners or spam emails, but it goes much deeper. It covers any misuse of personal data, including posting it online without consent. Under GDPR, fines are brutal, up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover, whichever is higher. And while the headlines usually feature massive companies, the principle applies to individuals, too.

In 2021, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY) investigated Kent Madin and found him guilty of serious GDPR breaches. They called it a “grave infringement” of privacy law. His actions, creating websites in other people’s names, publishing false allegations, and refusing erasure requests, were judged unlawful under European law.

It went further. Google was ordered to de-index his websites across the EU and Australia. Think about that: the largest search engine on earth agreed his content was damaging enough to be hidden from millions of people. That doesn’t happen lightly.

Real-world cases prove the consequences.

In 2021, Amazon was fined €746 million in Luxembourg for GDPR breaches.

In 2019, British Airways was fined £20 million for mishandling customer data.

A Portuguese hospital was fined €400,000 for failing to protect medical records.

And it’s not just GDPR. In the UK, people are jailed under the Malicious Communications Act for targeted online abuse. In 2019, a man in Birmingham was sentenced for creating fake accounts to harass his ex-partner. In Ireland, courts have convicted people of harassment for running smear campaigns, with custodial sentences handed down.

Germany, France, Spain? Same story. Defamation, stalking, privacy offences. All carry the possibility of prison.

But here’s where the line gets drawn in the sand: America.

In the US, the legal culture tilts in the opposite direction. What Europe calls harassment, America too often calls “free speech.” What Europe prosecutes as unlawful data processing, America doesn’t even recognise. There’s no federal equivalent to GDPR. Privacy laws are fragmented, weak, and inconsistent.

That’s why he sits in Montana, shielded by distance and a constitution that was never written with the internet in mind.

What if he came to Europe?

This is where it gets interesting.

If he set foot in the EU, and the authorities connected the dots, he could be detained. The IMY ruling already proves unlawful activity under GDPR. That alone could trigger enforcement. Add in national laws, and he could face charges of identity theft, harassment, stalking, defamation, and unlawful data processing.

He wouldn’t just be fighting one complaint. He’d be fighting a stack of them. Multiple victims. Multiple countries. Multiple agencies.

And once inside the EU, the shield of American law would vanish. No First Amendment loopholes. No jurisdictional excuses. Just the cold weight of European law pressing down. Prison time wouldn’t just be possible, it would be likely.

So what protects him?

Geography. An ocean wide enough to keep justice out of reach.

And he knows it.

That’s why he stays put. That’s why he hides behind American soil and a First Amendment never meant to shield harassment. Because the day he sets foot in Europe, everything changes.

The rulings are there. The evidence is there. The victims are waiting.

They’ve already sought advice from IMY. From lawyers who specialize in these crimes. From people who know exactly what legal levers to pull the second he crosses the border.

And if the victims knew he was in the EU, they would act, immediately, without hesitation, without compassion. Because this isn’t just about me. It’s about everyone he scarred.

The sea is his armour. But it’s thin armour. And one crossing would be enough to break it.

A letter from the author: When Online “Investigations” Hijack a Name: A GDPR Case with Real-World Consequences

I am reaching out to propose a story at the intersection of data rights, digital ethics, and reputational integrity—highlighting how unregulated online content can significantly affect individuals’ professional and personal lives.

For fifteen years, Kent Madin, an individual without recognised journalistic credentials or media affiliation, has maintained websites in my name containing unverified and outdated information presented as “investigative journalism.” Despite his claims, Mr. Madin operates outside any formal editorial oversight.

It is important to note that anyone can set up a website in someone else’s name and influence public perception, effectively conducting a digital witch hunt. In 2022, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY) identified Mr. Madin as having committed multiple serious breaches of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), specifically Articles 9, 10, and 17. These findings resulted in the mandatory removal of his websites in all 27 EU member states.

Nonetheless, this material persists on private servers beyond EU jurisdiction and continues to be referenced in various contexts.

In today’s environment, where digital searches are a standard part of vetting individuals, this situation has tangible professional consequences.

I have lost numerous employment opportunities and have been unable to secure work due to the presence of these defamatory websites operating in my name. For example, in 2016, I was shortlisted for an important humanitarian role involving migrant rescue and relief coordination. Despite accumulated strong endorsements from officers and management in respected organisations such as MoD (UK), MOAS, the Red Cross, and the Armed Forces of Malta, my candidacy was withdrawn following a risk assessment triggered by the presence of this content in online searches. This illustrates how such unregulated online material can influence decisions in sectors where reputation and reliability are paramount.

This case raises critical questions:

How should websites created without consent be treated when they impact an individual’s reputation?

Are current data protection laws sufficient to address cross-border online defamation?

What responsibilities do legitimate media have when sourcing information from unverifiable or self-published materials?

Where is the line between informal investigation and reputational damage?

I believe this story will engage audiences interested in data ethics, digital accountability, and the intersection of law and online content.

I am available to provide further details, including the original IMY decision, relevant military and NGO references, and specifics about the affected role.

Thank you for your consideration.

Several media outlets have already recieved this letter. If you’re interested in exploring this story for publication, please feel free to contact me.

In my defense, I have attempted to mitigate the impact of this situation by creating this blog in response to his websites in my name, and harmful online content, though I understand this approach may be viewed as inappropriate.

Summary: Risks in Defending Kent Madin

Defending Kent Madin involves serious legal, ethical, reputational, and narrative risks, especially given the documented regulatory findings and patterns of alleged misconduct:

Legal Risks:

Breach of GDPR: Sweden’s Privacy Protection Authority (IMY) ruled Madin violated key articles related to sensitive personal data and right to erasure.

Defamation liability: Repeating or amplifying defamatory content risks legal consequences.

Privacy violations: Republishing de-indexed or unlawfully obtained content may breach data protection laws.

Unauthorized use of names: Registering domain names using real individuals’ names for harmful or defamatory purposes may violate identity theft, impersonation, and cyberharassment laws in multiple jurisdictions.

Ethical Risks:

Violates principles from the Society of Professional Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists, including:

“Minimize harm”

“Act independently”

“Be accountable and transparent”

The use of victims’ names to set up websites designed to defame or intimidate is inconsistent with ethical investigative journalism.

Reputational Risks:

Credibility damage: Journalists and media outlets risk permanent harm to their reputations.

Professional isolation: Association with abusive or deceptive practices can lead to loss of support within journalism and digital rights communities.

Public backlash: Victims, advocacy groups, and regulators may publicly challenge and condemn the defense.

Narrative Risks:

Misleading framing: Portraying such actions as whistleblowing or journalism can appear manipulative or irresponsible.

Backlash from affected parties: Victims may see the defense as an extension of harassment.

Risk of misinformation: Defending someone who uses others’ names as tools for reputational harm can backfire if not backed by verified facts and legal clarity.

In short, defending Madin publicly is high-risk and must be approached with extreme caution, strict adherence to facts, and clear ethical grounding.

Kent Madin Faces Legal Exposure for Unauthorized Registration of Websites Using Personal Identities, Violating Privacy and Data Protection Laws

Kent Madin has knowingly and unlawfully registered numerous websites under the names and identities of private individuals without their explicit consent. These actions constitute a clear violation of privacy rights, intellectual property laws, and data protection regulations. The deliberate misuse of personal identifiers for the purpose of defamation and reputational damage exposes Mr. Madin to significant legal liability under applicable statutes governing identity theft, cybersquatting, and harassment.

Here are key laws relevant to using someone else’s name to set up a website and post information about their life, along with legal citations:

1. Right to Privacy and Personal Data Protection

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) — Regulation (EU) 2016/679

Article 5: Personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently.

Article 6: Processing personal data requires lawful grounds, such as consent.

Article 17: The “right to erasure” (right to be forgotten) allows individuals to request deletion of personal data.

Article 9: Processing sensitive personal data is prohibited unless specific exceptions apply.

Using someone’s personal data (name, life details) without consent violates GDPR.

2. Defamation Law

United States — Defamation Law (varies by state)

Defamation involves false statements that harm a person’s reputation.

Publishing false or misleading content about someone on a website can result in civil liability.

United Kingdom — Defamation Act 2013

Protects individuals from false statements damaging their reputation.

Website publishers can be held liable for defamatory content.

3. Identity Theft and Cybersquatting

United States — Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)

Prohibits registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from another’s trademark or name.

General identity theft laws (varies by jurisdiction)

Unauthorized use of a person’s name or identity for misleading purposes is illegal and punishable.

4. Privacy and Harassment Laws

Various jurisdictions have laws against harassment, stalking, and invasion of privacy, which can apply if a website is used to harass or intimidate an individual.

Summary

Using someone else’s name to register a website and publish information without consent can violate data protection laws like the GDPR, defamation laws, anti-cybersquatting statutes, and privacy or harassment laws. These laws impose civil and criminal penalties, including fines and damages.

https://pdfhost.io/v/DPNy9vcN6M_Swedish_Authority_for_Privacy_Protection__IMY__rules_Kent_Madin_s_website_be_removed_from_Google__EU

https://pdfhost.io/v/cBGDBMLd4Z_Swedish_Authority_for_Privacy_Protection__IMY__rules_against_Kent_Madin_of_Bozeman__Montana

External academic work related to Digital Identity Integrity and online behaviour can be found on my Academia profile:

https://independentresearcher.academia.edu/RipDavenport

Notice to Individuals Supporting or Endorsing the Conduct of Kent Madin

This advisory is issued in light of documented findings by the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY), which identified serious violations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) involving the unauthorized use of personal identities, reputational harm, and unlawful data dissemination.

Individuals who knowingly support, defend, or facilitate Mr. Madin’s documented activities may face reputational and legal consequences. Such conduct may be construed as complicity in defamation, invasion of privacy, or the propagation of unlawful content—potentially exposing involved parties to civil liability under applicable statutes.

Association with these actions may also result in professional and institutional harm. It is strongly advised that all parties exercise due diligence, critically assess the validity of related claims, and refrain from endorsing or amplifying conduct that contravenes established legal and ethical standards.

Those who have made public statements or shared materials in support of Mr. Madin are urged to review and, where appropriate, withdraw such content. Continued endorsement may be interpreted as active participation in reputational harm and may increase exposure to formal scrutiny.

This advisory is issued in the interest of public education, ethical accountability, and survivor-led documentation. All legal options remain under review.

Additional Evidence and Allegations Against Kent Madin

"Madin's activities were not those of a legitimate journalist. I have told Madin that his text messages have probably taken it to the next level and don't see them as anything that can be defended under the guise of journalism."

- STATEMENT FROM CAPT. STEVE CRAWFORD, (retd). BOZEMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

On May 23, 2014, Captain Steve Crawford of the Bozeman Police Department informed a victim that he had a) interviewed Madin, b) warned Madin not to have any further contact with victims and c) said he “intends to submit a case for prosecution to our prosecutor’s office.

On December 3, 2014 Captain Crawford confirmed that he wanted to prosecute Madin on charges of "Stalking MCA 45-5-220, Criminal Defamation MCA 45-8-212, and Violation of Privacy in Communications MCA 45-8-213.

DOCUMENTS

You are encouraged to read the vast amount of simple, clear evidence for yourself and form your own views.

KENT MADIN'S VIOLATIONS

A journey into Kent Madin’s diabolical labyrinth reveals the enormity of the man’s violations and his dogma of deceit. A man without shame, by his own words and deeds Kent Madin has impaled himself on documented cruelties.

THE FACTS ABOUT KENT MADIN

This is an apt description of Kent Madin the serial cyber stalker, who has engaged in criminal defamation, with the malicious intention to harass, torment and damage his victims for twelve years.

KENT MADIN THE COUNTERFEIT JOURNALIST

Kent Madin is a ruthless cyber vigilante and an internet peeping tom pretending to be an accredited journalist. Kent Madin’s claim to be a journalist is a brazen fabrication built on a foundation of lies.

KENT MADIN FINALLY SHUTDOWN BY GOOGLE

American internet troll and Cyberstalker who has targeted strangers around the world, both men and women, for at least 12 years, have finally been closed down across all 27 European countries and Australia by Google.

KENT MADIN’S FRAUDULENT PUBLISHER

Since 2011 Kent Madin has maintained the fantasy that he is an “Independent Research/Journo.” In stark contrast to that false claim, the report entitled “Madin - Counterfeit Journalist” documents how the apex cyber predator meets none of the requirements deemed necessary to be an authentic reporter.

GOOGLE AND KENT MADIN: PARTNERS IN CRIME?

This report proves that the apex cyber predator, Kent Holman Madin, has used an aggressive spam technique known as cloaking in order to illegally manipulate the rating of his defamatory cyber attack websites.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is a public warning to authentic journalists and editors who have been contacted by Kent Madin. Though Madin may appear to sound reasonable when he slyly suggests that you write an article, this is a masquerade designed to camouflage his rapacious desire to inflict emotional damage to his victims. No editor wants to be deceived. No journalist wants to be an accomplice to cyber crime.

CYBER CRIME REPORT

Since 2013 Kent Madin has perpetrated an international cyber campaign against people in many countries. Those who use the internet to harm others should be viewed as relentless apex internet predators. Members of the public and journalists are warned not to interact, respond or engage with Kent Madin. To do so may place you at risk. Do not be deceived into believing that Madin is an authentic journalist.

MADIN AND DIPLOMATIC DECEPTION

Madin’s attempts to camouflage his internet activities had not gone unchallenged.

Madin’s first step had been to obtain confidential information from the public by disguising himself as an “investigative journalist.” He then cloaked his cyberstalking activities under the guise of “Honorary Consul of Mongolia for the Northern Rockies” to authenticate his activities.

THE FBI IS INFORMED

The FBI was twice informed of how Madin was engaged in an international campaign of cyberstalking and asked to investigate claims that he presents an international menace to the public.

VIOLATING GOOGLE

Kent Madin violates Google's Webmaster Guidelines with aggressive spam techniques such as cloaking to illegally manipulate the rating of his defamatory cyber attack websites.

Given the fact that google has pointedly ignored many complaints about Kent Madin's illegal use of hidden text, and google only removed one offending page and not the entire defamatory website using stolen names, we believe there is a strong argument that the time has come to publish evidence of Kent Madin's long-term deception of google.

LUMEN REMOVAL NOTICES

Google totally right across Cyberstalker Madin’s case, yet again. Kent Madin now Star Attraction in Google’s Criminal Gallery.

KENT MADIN VIOLATES COPYRIGHT

Kent Madin is a repeat copyright violator who has blatantly stolen intellectual material which he has used to perpetrate numerous cyber crimes against his victims. During the ten year period (2011 to 2021), Madin has perpetrated 29 violations of copyright.

CEASE & DESIST ORDER

This CEASE AND DESIST ORDER is to inform Kent Madin that his persistent actions including but not limited to: launching a website under clients name, constantly contacting clients sponsors, management, speaking agency and other third parties, which includes Skype interviews, repeated unwanted telephone calls to clients sponsors, contacting editors of various third party blogs, contacting a previous landlord and gaining personal information.

He continues to blatantly ignore this official request.

VICTIMS AFFIDAVITS

Read the raft of damning legal declarations from victims around the world who have been stalked, trolled, harassed and threatened by Kent Madin.

CRIMINAL CASE OPENED

Ireland’s Minister for Justice and Equality authorised the Garda's Computer Crime Investigation Unit, to investigate Madin for various cyber crimes, including invasion of privacy. As a result Google Ireland delinked the offending website in 2015. The case remains open.

TESTIMONIALS

Despite my repeated requests and a Cease and Desist document to Mr. Kent Madin to stop dialog with me, I received libelous, unwanted and defamatory letters.

MS. RENATA BURBULIENE, LAWYER

Kent Madin obtained information from me under false pretences to wage his cyber campaign of destruction and defamation.

GEOFF YOUNG, EDITOR & PUBLISHER

The acts of cyber bullying became most threatening and in the end I had to contact Mr. Madin to request he cease to harass my business, myself and my colleagues. He has continued to torment my business associates and my client, who has temporarily withdrawn from the speaking circuit due to the effect Mr Madin has been having on himself, his family, us, his friends and his business associates.

SYLVIA TIDY-HARRIS, CEO

Kent Madin persisted in sending unwanted emails and requests for personal and private information. In my opinion Kent Madin has plagued our company with acts of cyberstalking and harassment.

STEVE DUTTON, EXPORT MANAGER

Kent Madin violated my right to privacy by publishing financial information and private emails on the internet and distributing it to third parties without consent. As a consequence of his relentless persecution, I am terrified of him, I have closed down all my social network accounts, I am afraid of his possible physical appearance outside my door. I dread not knowing when he will next contact people in my town or anyone I know.

LAURA DAVENPORT, BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL

I have been repeatedly, regularly and aggressively harassed by Kent Madin. He has emailed me countless times, attempted to contact folks around me, and left posts on line.

TODD CARMICHAEL, ENTREPRENEUR

Madin contacted me under false pretences via email and on Facebook and attempted to extract privileged information regarding an important business client. He has tried to harass me on Facebook and LinkedIn on numerous occasions, and the threat of ‘soiling’ my reputation as a trusted businessman has been a great concern.

STEVE BLETHYN, MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL

Based on my experience with Kent Madin, I can confirm that his actions define Cyber Stalking and Cyber Harassment.

STEVE BALLANTYNE, TV & FILM MANAGEMENT

Kent Madin has plagued my career and family, sponsors, charitable organisations, and social networking friends with ruthless acts of cyber stalking and cyber harassment. Kent Madin has affected my personal life and contacted current employers, which has resulted in loss of income on multiple occasions and my mental state causing stress, depression and an unbalanced family life.

RIPLEY DAVENPORT, PROFESSIONAL COPYWRITER

Our company received a letter from Kent Madin requesting to confirm my colleague's employment status. In our knowledge our colleague had no work related or any other connection to Kent Madin whatsoever. It was obvious sign of harassment of my colleague and her husband.

LIUDAS SUKYS, CEO

All material posted has been independently verified from Police and victim records. All claims on this blog are based on fact, in relation to stalking laws in the countries where Kent Madin has been stalking. The material does not defame Madin, as that would imply the information is not truthful.

Notice: This site documents a survivor-led account of reputational harm, digital misconduct, and institutional failure. All content is presented in good faith and supported by legal precedent, regulatory findings, and personal testimony.

Individuals who have publicly endorsed or disseminated materials associated with Kent Madin’s documented conduct are urged to critically review and, where appropriate, withdraw such content. Continued amplification of unlawful or defamatory material may be interpreted as complicity and could result in reputational and legal consequences under applicable civil statutes.

All legal options—including formal proceedings against Kent Madin and any parties found to be complicit—remain under active review.

This advisory is issued in the interest of public education, ethical accountability, and survivor-led documentation.

This site and its contents, including text, structure, and original commentary, are the intellectual property of the author and may not be reproduced, distributed, or republished without explicit written permission.

Citation and educational use permitted with attribution. For media or academic inquiries, please contact the author directly.

This archive is authored by Rip Davenport.

To learn more about the author’s work in survivor-led advocacy, endurance exploration, and public education, visit: ripdavenport.com.

External academic work related to Digital Identity Integrity and online behaviour can be found on my Academia profile:

https://independentresearcher.academia.edu/RipDavenport