If you are the family member of a registrant, or if you were arrested but not convicted of a sex crime, federal court thinks you don't have the right to be protected against harassment

Are you the mother of a registrant? Have you been arrested of a sex crime but never convicted? The US District in Phoenix thinks you deserve to be harassed.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumers/2016/07/01/jury-verdict-against-sex-offender-websites-owner/86583120/

Jury delivers $325,000 verdict against sex-offender websites owner
 Robert Anglen, The Republic | azcentral.com 4:50 p.m. MST July 2, 2016

Federal laws protecting the internet did not give the owner of several sex-offender websites license to post false and harassing information, a jury in U.S. District Court in Phoenix decided Friday.

The eight-member federal court jury rejected claims by Charles "Chuck" Rodrick that internet operators have immunity from lawsuits so long as they publish information from another source.

The jury awarded the president of a Phoenix-based aerospace company $325,000, saying Rodrick put him in a false light and intentionally inflicted emotional harm in web postings that accused him of infidelity, having sex with young boys and defrauding the U.S. government, among other statements.

"Justice was served today," California lawyer Janice Bellucci said shortly after the verdict was read. "Chuck Rodrick has been made to account for his reckless deeds."

Rodrick, 55, was sued by three people who say they were profiled on his websites even though they were not convicted of sex crimes. Their lawsuit accused him of extortion and of using his websites to put victims in a false light, to invade their privacy and to inflict emotional damage.

Patrick Harnden, Rodrick's lawyer, said Friday that the jury misinterpreted the Communications Decency Act, maintaining that Rodrick's posts came from publicly available third-party sources. He said the ruling flies in the face of laws protecting internet operators.

"I believe we were fighting for the First Amendment," Harnden said. "We were fighting for the internet."

The jury sided with Rodrick against two of the plaintiffs: the mother of a sex offender in Washington state who launched his own website to challenge Rodrick in 2012 and a man who was arrested on a sex-related charge years ago but was not classified as a sex offender.

The jury dismissed extortion and invasion of privacy claims against Rodrick. But the three-woman, five-man panel found Rodrick's posts against David Ellis, an aerospace company owner and retired Marine Corps major, were false and damaging.

"This is a win for anybody who is getting bullied on the internet," Ellis said Friday. "This is encouraging for a lot of victims ... There a lot of people out there who no longer need to suffer from the words and actions of (Rodrick)."

[My note: No, it isn't, Ellis. Obviously, the same courtesy wasn't awarded to the other two plaintiffs.]

Ellis said he planned to start working with attorneys to obtain a permanent injunction against Rodrick and force him to take down false and damaging posts.

This is Ellis' second legal victory against Rodrick. In 2014, Rodrick sued Ellis and several other people for defamation in Maricopa County Superior Court. A judge in the case then declared Rodrick the defendant in his own lawsuits and allowed counterclaims against him to go forward.

A jury found Rodrick defamed Ellis and two others, invaded their privacy, put them in a false light and abused the court system by filing lawsuits against them as a form of retaliation. They awarded the three victims $3.4 million, which was reduced on appeal to about $2 million.

Ellis estimates Rodrick now owes him $1.7 million.

Websites target retired Marine

Ellis, a 26-year veteran of the Marine Corps, testified that after he began dating Rodrick's former wife, his name appeared on sex-offender websites owned by Rodrick.

Ellis said he was identified by name, address and phone number on several sex-offender sites beginning in 2012.

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

Several federal and private agencies launched investigations against his firm, including the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration and the FBI, Ellis said. He was cleared of wrongdoing, government records show.

Harnden said Rodrick was a conduit for a whistleblower at Ellis' company. He said Rodrick reposted information from ripoffreport.com, a consumer complaint website. He said the posts about boys at Ellis' apartment also came from a message board.

Ellis said Rodrick embellished the posts and added his own commentary, including posting a $50,000 reward for information.

Herndon said Ellis thrust himself into Rodrick's operation by giving information about Rodrick to sex offenders who were attempting to find the owner of the sex-offender websites so they could sue him.

Five websites at issue in court

Rodrick's original websites, Offendex.com and SORArchives.com, originally claimed to profile the records of 750,000 sex offenders in the United States. The stated purpose was to list people identified as sex offenders and offer search functions not found on public databases.

Rodrick tried to limit the case to three sex-offender websites, but testimony ultimately centered two other websites he used to post online complaints about people he said "attacked" him online. Those included the plaintiffs, individual sex offenders, a judge, several lawyers and others.

Harnden said while some of the content might be offensive, the Communications Decency Act gives Rodrick permission to republish any material on his websites as long as it comes from another source. He compared Rodrick's websites to any news site.

“There was nothing decent about his communication. It was about a bully who made outrageous comments about people he didn't like.”

"We didn't create the information that (plaintiffs) are complaining about," Harnden told the jury, adding that nothing requires Rodrick to investigate the accuracy of posts before he puts them online. "If you find the information came from somewhere else, game over."

Bellucci said Friday the case was not about the First Amendment or the Communications Decency Act.

"There was nothing decent about his communication," she said. "It was about a bully who made outrageous comments about people he didn't like."

The federal court case has evolved 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.

Website owner says no extortion, threats

Rodrick denied in court Thursday using the websites to extort money. He testified that he created a review process shortly after the websites launched to address an overwhelming number of complaints from people who said they were wrongly profiled. The fees paid the cost of an employee to conduct the review process, he said.

Rodrick also told the jury he did not make any direct threats.

But records obtained by The Arizona Republic as part of a 2013 investigation showed that website operators threatened to expose offenders, their families and friends on the internet. Operators responded to attacks by getting into hostile internet exchanges with sex offenders named on the website.

“Since you like Facebook so much ... we have added your 65 friends to your page on Offendex,” a Nov. 9, 2012 email reads. “We will release your record to five more search engines plus a few other ‘special spots’ that you do not want to be.”

In another email, operators told an offender: “Enjoy the exposure you have created for yourself... Unfortunately you took (your) family with you.”

Rodrick acknowledged in court that he was under investigation by the FBI and that agents conducted a search of his home last year, seizing computers, thumb drives and various documents.

Rodrick said the FBI was responding to a complaint campaign orchestrated by sex offenders. He said said he voluntarily agreed to interviews, and federal agents left with a renewed understanding of the case.

"Their eyes were wide open (about) the facts of their investigation," Rodrick said.

An FBI official said Friday the agency could not comment on an "ongoing investigation." Agents have supplied letters identifying several individuals as victims of Rodrick's activities.

Rodrick said in court that the information on his websites came from the National Predator Database, which his company took from the web and used without permission. He also told the jury that he did no review of the records before posting them, saying there were so many it would have taken 75 years to complete.

Rodrick's former partner, Brent Oesterblad, testified as the only other defense witness in this week's federal trial. He said Friday the verdict was unfair.

"I'm very disappointed," said Oesterblad, a former defendant in the case before all claims against him were dismissed. "Mr. Ellis prevailed on only two of his claims ... Originally, there was a total of 12 plaintiffs with five claims each, totaling 60 claims. That means we are 58 to two."

Idaho vigilante thug Bradley Houser gets a slap on the wrist from brutally beating a 69-year old man

A brutal beating and this guy gets to go some bullshit diversion program? If he beat a homosexual for being gay, he would have had the book thrown at him.

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-sentenced-for-felony-battery-on-registered-sex-offender/article_005bfffa-a970-11e3-a0cc-0019bb2963f4.html

Man Sentenced for Felony Battery on Registered Sex Offender
7 hours ago  •  By Alison Gene Smith alismith@magicvalley.com(0) Comments

Police: Men Broke into Hotel, Beat up Sex Offender

TWIN FALLS • Police say two men broke into a hotel room and beat a man who is a registered sex offender. Read more

TWIN FALLS - A man convicted of felony aggravated battery for beating a 69-year-old man was sentenced Monday in Twin Falls County District Court.

Bradley Houser, 35, was sentenced to the state's retained jurisdiction program. He will attend the Correctional Alternative Placement Program through the Idaho Department of Correction.

After the program, a judge can either put Houser on probation or send him to prison for an underlying sentence of three to 15 years.

Houser was also ordered to reimburse the county public defender's office for $500 and was ordered to pay victim's restitution of $1,257.44.

Police said Houser beat the man because he is a registered sex offender.

A police report by Twin Falls police officer Samir Smriko gives this account:

Just before 10:30 p.m. Aug. 23, police went to the Super 7 Motel at 320 Main Ave. E. following a battery call.

As police entered the hotel room they saw Rick Perkins, 69, washing blood off his head and arms. Perkins had a 2-inch gash on his forehead and multiple cuts in other places.

Perkins told police that at about 10 p.m., two men came to his door and threatened him. Perkins recognized one from a previous encounter. The men said they were going to beat him up because of a past child sex abuse case.

In 2008, Perkins was convicted on six counts of lewd conduct with a minor younger than 16. He was sentenced to three years in prison and made parole in November 2011.

Perkins told police two men who smelled of alcohol initially left his room because other people were around but soon returned, closed the door behind them and started beating him.

The beating lasted for about 10 minutes. As he spoke to officers, Perkins grabbed his side in pain several times.

Paramedics arrived, and Perkins declined to be taken to a hospital but was informed he would need stitches on his head.

Police later found Houser in the 200 block of Alexander Street but couldn't locate the other man.

Houser was extremely intoxicated and had to use a fence to hold himself up, police said. He told them he and another man whom he didn't know went to the hotel and Perkins swung at them.

Internet trolls warned: Expect arrest if you abuse people online...but only in the UK

Well cheerio and all that rot! The British are apparently trying to crack down on internet harassment. Now, I'm not British, nor can I say what the lsaws are there. I personally hope this extends to those so-called "paedo-hunters."

http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/26/internet-trolls-warned-expect-arrest-if-you-abuse-people-online-4324660/

Internet trolls warned: Expect arrest if you abuse people online
Wednesday 26 Feb 2014 8:10 pm

Internet trolls were today warned there was no hiding place from justice.

They were told to expect arrest if they threatened or abused people on social media sites.

Culture secretary Maria Miller said there was a ‘straightforward principle’ that rules which applied offline would also be applied online.

‘The internet isn’t a ‘‘Second Life’’,’ she said, ‘It isn’t something where different rules apply, where different behaviour is acceptable – it isn’t the wild west.’

Addressing the Oxford Media Convention, she said: ‘Whether it is images of child abuse or terrorist material we will use the full force of the law, national and international, to take down that content and pursue the perpetrators.

‘If you vilely insulted, or threatened to attack someone in person on the street, you do so expecting to be arrested and charged. The same already applies on social media.’

Referring to the recent jailing of a man and a woman who subjected feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez to online abuse, Ms Miller said ‘being online does not mean the law doesn’t apply to you’. She added: ‘Last year, 2,000 people were prosecuted for sending electronic communications that were grossly offensive or menacing.’

Ms Miller told the audience ‘the veil of anonymity the internet provides may be valuable but does not give licence to insult, cheat or exploit.’

Taking aim at illegal downloads, she added: ‘If you wanted to see a film or listen to a CD, you wouldn’t sneak into a shop and steal it off the shelf, so why do the online equivalent and download it illegally?

‘It’s about good citizenship… as well as what’s legal and what’s not.’

Clay Keys/ T-Sand sentenced to 15 years

Absolute Zero United alumni Clay Keys will spend a decade and a half in prison. Good riddance.

http://www.wtvy.com/news/crimes/headlines/Re-243578601.html

Registered Sexual Offender Sentenced to Return to Prison

Posted: Tue 4:38 PM, Feb 04, 2014
By: News Release
Home / News / Crime Watch / Headlines List / Article

PENSACOLA, FLORIDA – Pensacola resident 53 year-old Clay C. Keys, was sentenced Tuesday on his guilty plea to a federal indictment charging him with the receipt and distribution of child pornography and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. Keys was previously convicted in state court for a lewd and lascivious act upon a child and is a registered sexual offender.

Keys was found guilty of using peer-to-peer software between April 2009 and August 2013 to share thousands of images of child pornography online. A federal search warrant was obtained for Keys’ residence in August 2013, and law enforcement officers discovered more than 10,000 images and videos of child pornography. Chief United States District Judge M. Casey Rodgers sentenced Keys to 15 years in federal prison to be followed by a lifetime of supervised release.

Keys was also sentenced to 10 years in prison for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, which will run concurrent with his sentence for child pornography.

In announcing the sentence imposed by the court, United States Attorney Pamela C. Marsh credited the success of this prosecution to the joint efforts of the Department of Homeland Security, the Pensacola Police Department, and other members of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, whose joint investigation led to the complaint in the case.

The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David L. Goldberg.

Dennis Sobin can continue posting his "Idiots Registry," rules DC judge

Vigilantes, crooked politicians, and corrupt cops, take notice, YOU can be included on the "Idiots Registry." I was in DC Tuesday supporting Sobin, who vows to greatly expand the registry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-news/sex-offender-can-continue-to-post-photos-judge-says/2014/01/28/4687f63a-8861-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html


Sex offender can continue to post photos, judge says
By Justin Moyer, Published: January 28 E-mail the writer

A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that a convicted sex offender can distribute and post photos of court employees online to protest the city’s sex offender registry.

Dennis Sobin, a former pornographer who served more than a decade in prison for a sexual performance using a minor, posted the photos of employees from D.C.’s Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) on idiotsregistry.info saying that sex-offender registries are unfair. A court employee filed for a civil protection order, accused him of stalking and asked the court to have Sobin to remove her photo.

But Judge Todd E. Edelman said that Sobin’s actions were protected by the First Amendment.

“Mr. Sobin’s conduct could be criticized,” said Edelman. “I think it’s unlikely to be effective. I think that criticizing lower-level court employees is puzzling. But that’s not my place to say.”

The unusual case garnered the attention of the ACLU, which filed a brief on Sobin’s behalf. Tuesday’s hearing also drew interest from other sex offenders and anti-registry activists.

“I’m very happy the judge understood and abided by the U.S. Constitution that gives citizens the right to protest, even in a personal sort of way,” Sobin said.

Sobin, 70, thought the decision could inspire similar protests elsewhere.

“The judge’s opinion will be used as ammunition around the country,” he said.

Stephanie Gray, the CSOSA employee who sought the protection order, and her attorneys declined comment.

Vicki L. Henry, president of Indiana’s Women Against Registry, welcomed the decision, saying people are not aware how much sex offender registries damage families.

“There’s no empirical evidence supporting these registries,” said Henry, whose son is a sex offender, outside the courtroom. “We need to promote prevention.”

Derek W. Logue, a sex offender from Ohio who was there to support Sobin, said that registries prevent criminals from moving forward.

“I’m 37,” Logue said. “They’re still judging me on what I did when I was 22.”

Florida court says Facebook threats are crimes

I guess this means we'll be hearing even less from David Rowe or Valerie Parkhurst in the future.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/science_tech/court-threats-posted-on-facebook-are-crimes


Court: Threats posted on Facebook are crimes

Posted: 1:49 AM
Last Updated: 2 hours and 41 minutes ago

By: Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - A Florida appeals court has decided that posting threats on one's personal Facebook page can be prosecuted under the state's "sending written threats to kill or do bodily harm" law. 

The 1st District Court of Appeal on Monday ruled in a case that a Facebook post could be considered a "sending" for the purposes of the law. 

The language in question was in a status that the defendant had posted on his Facebook page about a relative and her same-sex partner.  The relative didn't see it but found out about it through another family member. 

The defendant said he couldn't be charged because he did not "send" the threatening language to his relative.  A unanimous three-judge panel disagreed. 

The case is O'Leary v. State of Florida, 1D12-0975.

Facebook given 72 hours to remove paedophile monitoring page

This Facebook group is a  wannabe PJ group who is posting info meant only for LE. Unlike in the USA, England's registry has limitations for a reason.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20556775



NORTHERN IRELAND

30 November 2012 Last updated at 12:11 ET
Facebook given 72 hours to remove paedophile monitoring page
A convicted sex offender has won a High Court order for the removal of a Facebook page set up to monitor paedophiles in Northern Ireland.
A judge ruled some content amounted to prima facie harassment of the man and risked infringing his human rights.
Facebook was given 72 hours to take down the page 'Keeping our kids safe from predators'.
The page has been taken down, but two with similar names then appeared on Friday afternoon.
Mr Justice McCloskey said: "Society has dealt with the plaintiff in accordance with the rule of law."
"He has been punished by incarceration and he is subject to substantial daily restrictions on his lifestyle."
'Degrading treatment'
The man, who cannot be identified, was given a six year jail sentence for a string of child sex offences committed more than two decades ago.
The man, known only as XY, issued proceedings against the social networking site after discovering his photograph and threatening comments posted on the page.
He claimed harassment, misuse of private information, and a breach of his right to privacy and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment.
The court heard that he fears being attacked or burnt out of his home.
In a statement he described the published material as an attempt to vilify and stir up hatred against him.
Details of some of the comments posted about him since his case against Facebook Ireland Ltd gained publicity had been disclosed earlier in court.
One said: "So the man, or I mean mess of a human being, that's taken this page to court, he must want to be the head paedophile and rule over all sex offenders. He will be like a god to them."
Another stated: "Put him down like an animal."
Interim relief
It was also set out how he is suffering from ill health.
Although Facebook has already removed his photo and comments made about the man, his legal team insisted the page should be shut down down.
They are also seeking disclosure of the identity of those who set up and ran it.
Lawyers for Facebook argued that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to remove a page used by 4,000 people.
However, balancing the competing rights to privacy and freedom of expression, Mr Justice McCloskey ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
He pointed out that only interim relief was being sought at this stage, and that granting it would cause minimal disruption to Facebook.
"I conclude that the pendulum of the rule of law swings in the plaintiff's favour," the judge said.
"The order of the court will be that the removal from facebook.com of the page entitled 'Keeping our kids safe from predators'... is to be effected within 72 hours."