Thursday, June 30, 2016

The Associated Press refuses to publish an "alleged" killer's name because she used the abuse excuse, but I'm not the AP.

The Associate Press wouldn't publish the name or the mugshot of Kayleene Grenier because she claims she was sexually assaulted by the person she helped murder. That's a load of horseshit! Thankfully, the other media outlets haven't followed the same policy, so here is the abuse excuse/ 'alleged" murdered Kayleene Greniger.

Minnesota woman accused of hiding machete used in beheading
JUNE 30, 2016 3:10 PM

The Associated Press

A Minnesota woman was charged Thursday with hiding a machete her boyfriend allegedly used to decapitate a man she said raped her.

Prosecutors charged the 22-year-old woman with being an accomplice to second-degree murder after the fact and with third-degree assault, both felonies. Her bail was set at $2 million without conditions, the same as her boyfriend's.

She's accused of tying up and beating David Haiman, breaking his nose, after he arrived at the Grand Rapids apartment she shared with Joseph Thoresen, 35. She untied him, then Thoresen punched him repeatedly, the complaint said.

Prosecutors allege Thoresen later ambushed Haiman along a road near Ball Club and used a machete to decapitate the 20-year-old Hibbing man. Authorities found Haiman's torso and head Sunday. The woman allegedly hid the machete in the couple's apartment.

According to the complaint in Itasca County, the woman had told Thoresen that Haiman had sexually assaulted her.

The Associated Press generally doesn't name people who say they're victims of sexual abuse. Her attorney didn't return a phone message seeking comment.

Thoresen is charged with murder. His attorney, Darla Nubson, declined to comment.

Itasca County sheriff's investigator Mark Weller told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he "can't confirm or deny" whether the sexual assault occurred.

"We are looking into that," Weller said.

Both Thoresen and his girlfriend remained in jail Thursday. They are due in court Tuesday.

Here is a non-AP article that had no problem publishing Kayleene's name.

Grand Rapids Woman Charged as an Accomplice to the Murder of David Haiman

Joseph Thoresen's Girlfriend an Accomplice

POSTED: 02:58 PM CDT Jun 30, 2016


On Thursday morning, Kayleene Greniger, 22 of Grand Rapids appeared in Itasca County District Court. She is charged with one count of Accomplice after the Fact to Murder in the Second Degree and one count of Assault in the Third Degree. 

The charges stem from allegations that Greniger and Joseph Thoresen assaulted David Haiman, 20 of Hibbing, at their apartment and later Thoresen assaulted Haiman with a baseball bat, knife, and machete and caused Haiman's death on or about June 21st, 2016. The charges also allege that Greniger hid the machete in their apartment.

At the hearing, upon recommendation of the prosecutor, the court set bail in the amount of $200,000 without conditions or $100,000 with conditions. Greniger's next court appearance is set for July 5th, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

FBI confirms Chuck Rodrick IS under investigation as Rodrick defends himself in court (but fails to actually appear in court)

Maybe the FBI should add impersonating a police officer to the complaint. He was posting under the fake profile "JonathanWilson," and the face of Jonathan Wilson was that of a dead Colorado police officer. Another of Rodrick's aliases is John DeMargo, and he is using a profile pic of French Author John Green.

I'm not happy the judge didn't allow the lawsuits by those actually on the registry to continue, as if to say it is perfectly okay to harass a registered citizen. But at least THIS lawsuit is ongoing. Plus, the FBI has confirmed it is investigating Chuck Rodrick.

Phoenix website owner's attorney denies harassment claims in federal court trial
 Robert Anglen, The Republic | 12:56 p.m. MST June 29, 2016

An attorney for a businessman accused of using multiple websites for internet harassment is arguing in court that his client did nothing wrong and that his online activity was protected by federal law.

Charles "Chuck" Rodrick was not in U.S. District Court in Phoenix when lawyers made opening statements to a jury.

The civil case started three years ago with allegations Rodrick used websites to demand money and target people for harassment. The sites' stated purpose was to list people identified as sex offenders, but plaintiffs claimed Rodrick had used the sites to target them for harassment when they were not required to be registered as sex offenders.

Defense attorney Michael Harnden said evidence would show Rodrick, on three sites he operated focusing on sex-offender information, never falsely identified any of the plaintiffs as registered sex offenders or falsely claimed they were required to register as a sex offender.

He said Rodrick had immunity from lawsuits because the information posted on the sex-offender websites came from third parties and he was just republishing "freely available information" similar to any news site.

"(Plaintiffs) do not have a single piece of proof to back up any of their claims," Harnden told the jury Tuesday, adding: "My client's character, reputation and his businesses are not on trial here."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs tried to make Rodrick's business and reputation the centerpiece of their case, saying he used the websites to post untrue allegations, including infidelity, fraud, implied sex offenses and criminal activity.

California lawyer Janice Bellucci said this was a case about a man who uses the internet to make "accusations he can't back up" and who uses his websites to publish false and malicious information about his victims.

Rodrick is being sued by three people who say they were profiled on his websites even though they were not convicted of sex crimes. In their lawsuit, they accused him of extortion and of using his websites to put victims in a false light, invade privacy and to intentionally inflict emotional damage.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed that Rodrick, 55, is under investigation for his Web-based activities.

Rodrick also owes about $2 million in unpaid court judgments to three people he unsuccessfully attempted to sue in 2014, including two of the plaintiffs in the federal case.

Lawsuit evolved over 3 years

The federal court case has changed dramatically since it was filed in 2013, with the focus going from claims by sex offenders who argued they were unlawfully targeted by Rodrick to questions about whether Rodrick used his websites to launch personal attacks and disseminate false information.

The lawsuit originally was filed on behalf of 10 people who said Rodrick used government records to create his own database and demand money to remove the records under the threat of increased exposure.

Some claimed their names appeared on Rodrick's websites long after their names had been removed from official sex-offender registries. Others said their names remained on Rodrick's websites after they paid him a removal fee.

A judge last year dismissed claims filed by several plaintiffs who were sex offenders, saying Rodrick was protected from liability under federal law because he was republishing information from official records and not creating original content.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton said those plaintiffs could not prove Rodrick was "responsible for the development or creation of information" on his websites despite his demands for money for records removal.

Bolton, however, refused to dismiss claims filed by plaintiffs who "have never registered as sex offenders or been convicted of a sex-related offense."

The three plaintiffs include a retired U.S. Marine Corps major who never has been arrested or charged with a crime; the mother of a sex offender in Washington state who launched his own website to challenge Rodrick in 2013; and a man who was arrested on a sex-related charge years ago but who says he was not classified as a sex offender or required to register as one.

"The court could reasonably conclude that defendant created a portion of his websites’ content by adding the personal information of those plaintiffs not listed on preexisting sex offender registries and misidentifying them as individuals who have been convicted of a sex-related offense," Bolton wrote last year.

Plaintiffs claim misstatements, damage

Bellucci, who works for the non-profit California Reform Sex Offender Laws, said each of the plaintiffs has suffered damage as a result of Rodrick's websites.

David Ellis, who served 26 years in the U.S. Marines and is now president of a Phoenix aerospace company, testified that after he he began dating Rodrick's  ex-wife, his name appeared on sex-offender websites owned by Rodrick.

He said Rodrick launched a campaign beginning in 2013 that is still ongoing. Ellis said he was identified on several sex-offender sites and that Rodrick accused him of infidelity, entertaining young boys at his apartment and falsely claiming his brother was a murderer and a heroin addict.

Ellis said Rodrick last year sent complaints to the Department of Defense calling for an investigation of Ellis' company, American Aerospace Technical Castings in Phoenix, claiming that Ellis manufactured faulty airline parts for commercial and military airplanes and falsified test results.

Ellis said there were several federal and private investigations of his firm, including the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which cleared him of the charges.

Harnden said Rodrick was simply a conduit for a whistleblower at Ellis' company and as such was just forwarding a complaint to the government. Ellis countered that Rodrick paid the so-called whistleblower, a former employee, and used the information to accuse Ellis of fraud.

Harnden contended that Ellis thrust himself into Rodrick's operation by giving information about Rodrick to sex offenders. Ellis said he first got involved after Rodrick's ex-wife came to him for help in 2012. He said he investigated Rodrick's websites and discovered that Rodrick was demanding money to have records removed from the site.

He said sex offenders had posted the name and address of Rodrick's ex-wife and children online and he helped to get that information removed by offering them information on Rodrick's current whereabouts.

Superior Court case covered similar ground

The issues in the federal trial are similar to those raised in Maricopa County Superior Court in a case in which Rodrick sued several people, including Ellis, who publicly decried his websites.

A judge in the case, heard in 2014, declared Rodrick the defendant in his own defamation lawsuits and allowed counterclaims against him to go forward, reversing the roles of the defendants and making them plaintiffs. The move effectively put Rodrick in the position of defending himself in his own case.

A jury found Rodrick defamed three victims, invaded their privacy, put them in a false light and abused the court system by filing lawsuits against them as a form of retaliation.

'Republic' investigation spotlighted Rodrick

Rodrick's original websites, and, originally claimed to profile the records of 750,000 sex offenders in the United States.

An investigation by The Arizona Republic in 2013 found Rodrick's sites mined data compiled by law-enforcement agencies across the country and used it to collect money from sex offenders. Operators did not always take down profiles after payments were made, and they launched online harassment campaigns against those who balked at financial demands or filed complaints.

The investigation found websites listed individuals as sex offenders who no longer were required to register or whose names had been removed from sex-offender databases. The sites included names and personal information of people who had never been arrested or convicted of a sex crime.

The internet-savvy operators ensured anyone in their databases could be found easily on a Google search. They prominently profiled specific individuals, published their home and email addresses and posted photographs of their relatives.

In court filings and elsewhere, Rodrick repeatedly denied ownership of the websites.

Rodrick's former partner, Brent Oesterblad, testified in 2014 that he helped disguise Rodrick's ownership interest by opening bank accounts and filing corporation papers for him. He said Rodrick further hid his role by registering website domain names in foreign countries and running them through proxy servers. His claims were backed by court and financial records.

Rodrick and Oesterblad both were convicted on unrelated fraud-related charges in the early 1990s.

FBI investigation underway

The FBI has been investigating Rodrick for more than a year over his Web activities, and his former attorney has spoken out against him.

Federal agents have provided letters confirming the investigation to Ellis and others profiled on Rodrick's websites.

"You have been identified as a victim of the activities conducted by Charles Rodrick," the letter states. "The current investigation has revealed a number of victims and is ongoing."

In addition to the sex-offender websites, Harnden said Rodrick operates websites such as and, which include references to several people involved in his cases.

Under the headings, "sex offenders ... bad lawyers ... corruption," and "lies ... conspiracy ... news media fraud ... theft,"  Rodrick's site promises to expose the truth.

Rodrick's former lawyer in the federal case also has accused Rodrick of trying to extort free legal services and of lying to the court.

Daniel Warner, who has been called as a witness in the federal case and testified Wednesday, said Rodrick filed a complaint with the State Bar of Arizona alleging misconduct after Warner withdrew from the case.

Rodrick accused Warner of violating several professional rules, including fraudulent billing, conflict of interest and revealing privileged attorney-client information through an article on the firm's blog last year with the headline, "Two men, one extortion racket website?"

Warner, in a denial letter to the State Bar, said the blog was a mistake by a contract employee and went on to detail emails and statements about Rodrick's false claims. Although most attorney-client communication is protected under law, the privilege was waived so Warner could respond to the allegations.

Warner said Rodrick made false statements about his ownership of the website and his past and continued to violate court orders.

The bar dismissed Rodrick's complaint against Warner in January.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Vigilante Scumbag Roundup 6/29/16: GoFundMe scams and more vigis getting away with murder

I've been busy doing other things so I haven't had much time to devote to this blog lately, so here's a roundup of vigilante scumbags:

Zach Sweers running GoFundMe scam: was more than willing to help promote Zach Sweers's crappy GoFundMe campaign to raise money for lawyers after one of his victims sued him. "'Despite my strong defenses, I'm greatly disadvantaged,' Sweers wrote on a GoFundMe page. 'I've been representing myself in the few weeks this lawsuit has been going on so far and I have realized that Michigan law in civil court procedure is way over my head.'... His GoFundMe page shows nearly $6,700 in donations, with a $25,000 goal." Interestingly, he has doubled his campaign request once he earned $25,000. Gee, you'd think $25k would be enough for a "frivolous lawsuit." It seems to me Zach discovered the path to easy money, and there are plenty of suckers willing to throw money at this loser. He should be in jail!

UK: No Charges for teens who beat and killed a man they mistook for a "paedophile."

Predator Panic is just as bad 'across the pond, and so are the vigilante scumbags. In the UK Sun piece, "THEY GOT AWAY WITH MURDER Fury of woman whose dad was beaten to death by paedophile vigilante gang after teens walk free," the following was reported:

"Lorry driver Kelly was lured to his death by a then 15-year-old girl, who said she was an adult, after meeting on an internet chat room.

Witnesses saw all four teens repeatedly punching and kicking Darren before 20-year-old Chris Carol, who was convicted of murdering Kelly last year, stabbed the dad six times.

The remaining three teens, two boys aged 17 and the girl, now 16, were cleared of murder and manslaughter after a six-week trial at Chelmsford crown court. Carol was jailed for a minimum of 21 years....

A fourth teenager, aged 13, who was seen attacking the 42-year-old, never faced charges...

“It is an immense sense of injustice only having one in five behind bars. The girl who organised it has got away scot-free, which leaves me with a very bitter taste in the mouth," said Zoe Kelly, the daughter of the man beaten to death.

And, since they aren't guilty by court rule, there are no picture of these thugs. You'd think since they didn't kill a real sex offender, they would have gotten in trouble!