Offendex/SORArchives extortionist Chuck Roderick arrested for multiple felonies!

 

On Wednesday, April 6th, 2021, the FBI arrested Charles Rodrick, the head of the Offendex and related sites like Offendex-data, Sexoffenderarchives, and Courtkey, has been arrested on multiple crimes, including Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices, Illegally Conducting an Enterprise, Computer Tampering (Rodrick only), and teo Counts of Aggravated Harassment. 

The same grand jury also indicted his colleague Brent Oesterblad and Sarah Shea, former wife of Mr. Oesterblad for a variety of felonies including computer tampering, fraudulent schemes and artifices as well as illegally conducting an enterprise.

.7:40pm PST, April 6th, 2021, Records indicate he has posted the $30k bond and is free from physical custody. However, he is still fitted with the GPS tracking bracelet.

For full details on the arrest, go to:

https://www.courtkey.com/2021/04/breaking-new-charles-rodrick-has-been.html

Why is a registered citizen promoting a website harassing an extorting folks like him? What an idiot.

Shaun Webb, a registered sex offender, stooped to a new low, this time promoting Chuck Roderick's registrant extortion websites. Why would anyone on the registry promote a website that extorts money from people on the registry? (Because Shaun is a dumbass, that's why.) In before Shaun tries to hide this error:

It is obvious Shaun Webb has a FB page now to do screenhots. I hope he registered his FB page. BTW, it is obvious that Shaun Webb hasn't been to SOR Archives, because he will find THIS:

Awkward.

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."

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.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/06/29/phoenix-website-owners-attorney-denies-harassment-claims-federal-court-trial/86313212/

Phoenix website owner's attorney denies harassment claims in federal court trial
 Robert Anglen, The Republic | azcentral.com 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, Offendex.com and SORArchives.com, 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 Courtkey.com and Barcomplaint.com, 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 Courtkey.com 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.

Looks like Offendex/ Chuck Rodrick is at it again. Has he paid that $3.4 Million he owed yet?

When we last discussed Chuck Rodrick (AKA Sucky Chucky) and his Offendex extortion scam, he has busy trying to hide $3.4 million dollars in money he scammed from folks. He obviously hasn't learned his lesson. He is still filing lawsuits from a UPS store address (34522 N. Scottsdale Rd., #120-467, Scottsdale, AZ 85266). I guess he's too much of a pussy to show his face in public. 

I guess he's hoping to start some new shit with folks so he's finally gotten around to targeting me. But then he goes and quotes Valerie Parkhurst as a credible source. What a joke. So now he is running two MORE scamming sites, BarComplaint.com and SexOffenderNewswire.com, both sites looking like it was created by a kid. 

From what I have heard, he's hiding from the Feds. I don't doubt it. I'm still waiting for the Offendextortion site to update us on Chuck and his run from justice. There is also another

My guess is he is just wanting someone to beat his ass. Luckily for him, I'm busy dealing with another con artist to deal with him so I'll just keep this one on the backburner for now. But i'm not done with him or his cronies threatening me anonymously.

Jury unanimously awards $3.4 Million to (some of the victims) of Offendex

The one thing that stands out to me in this story is not the award but who was the award-- an actual registered citizen. To me, it seems if Chuck and Brent of Offendex limit themselves to extorting actual registrants, then this jury gave them the green light.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/2014/05/15/jury-awards-m-victims-sex-offender-websites/2159268/

Jury awards $3.4M to victims of sex offender websites
Robert Anglen, The Republic | azcentral.com 7:33 p.m. MST May 15, 2014
Jury delivers unanimous $3.4 million verdict against sex offender Websites operator

Victims targeted for harassment on sex-offender websites pleaded with a Maricopa County jury to financially punish the owner and take away his ability to continue operating.

On Wednesday, the jury listened.

In a unanimous verdict, jurors hit Valley businessman Charles "Chuck" Rodrick with a $3.4 million judgment on behalf of three people profiled on websites such as Offendex.com, SORArchives and SexOffenderrecord.com.

Rodrick is accused of running an Internet extortion racket that used public records maintained by law enforcement to demand money from sex offenders, harassing those who complained.

The jury awarded victims almost $500,000 in actual damages and $2.9 million in punitive damages, agreeing Rodrick defamed them, invaded their privacy, put them in a false light and abused the court system by filing lawsuits against them as a form of retaliation.

: Sex offender data is used to collect money and intimidate

: Scrutiny suspends websites' dealings

: Court hammers operator of Internet intimidation sites

The decision came after the court last week declared Rodrick the defendant in defamation lawsuits he filed more than a year ago against those who publicly decried the websites, including his ex-wife, her boyfriend, a convicted sex offender from Washington and the offender's mother.

Superior Court Judge Douglas Gerlach also allowed several of the victims' counterclaims against Rodrick 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.

Rodrick, 52, of Cave Creek, appeared unperturbed by the separate verdicts. The court clerk had barely finished reading the judgments when Rodrick leaned sideways in his chair and called out to the opposing parties with a promise to appeal.

"Well, gentleman. You know the drill," he said in a loud, mirthful voice.

Rodrick, who for more than a year has refused to discuss his websites, declined comment after court Wednesday.

His victims said they were elated by the decision.

"I am super glad justice has been served," Phoenix resident David Ellis said following the trial. "I did ask (the jury) to make their verdict significant enough to keep him from ever climbing out of his hole, and they did."

Ellis said he was targeted after he began dating Rodrick's ex-wife while the couple were going through an acrimonious divorce. Court records show Rodrick posted information on several websites suggesting Ellis, a decorated combat veteran with no criminal record, was a child molester.

Ellis, who is co-owner of an airplane-parts manufacturing company in Phoenix called American Aerospace Technical Castings, said Rodrick posted false information accusing his company of making shoddy equipment. Ellis said Rodrick also accused him of workplace sexual harassment.

"It's kind of a shame. I fought for people's civil rights," Ellis said. "Then this guy, he used the First Amendment to attack me."

Rodrick's ex-wife, Lois Flynn of Chandler, said she felt vindicated. Rodrick's websites accused her of having an adulterous relationship, being an alcoholic and working with child molesters who sought to discredit the websites.

Flynn said the Internet postings damaged her reputation and affected her relationships at church, where she once worked with kids.

"In church Sunday, if anyone looks at me sideways, I can hold up the judgment and say I have been judged the right way."

The jury awarded Ellis almost $2.2 million. It awarded Flynn $780,000. It also gave $467,000 to Susan Galvez, the mother of a convicted sex offender in Washington sued by Rodrick after her son launched an Internet campaign challenging Rodrick's websites.

In court, Galvez called Rodrick a "bad man." Her son, Adam Galvez, 39, pleaded guilty to child molestation in 1996. The jury did not award him any damages, dismissing his claims against Rodrick.

Adam Galvez said he considered his mother's win a victory for the family. He said he felt vindicated the moment the judge declared him a plaintiff and he no longer faced the threat of Rodrick's lawsuit.

"I had nothing to lose," he said. "The jury did what was right. If they had gotten the time to get to know who I am, they probably would have ruled differently."

Galvez said he was putting his life back together in 2012 when he discovered his profile on Offendex.com. When Galvez refused to pay to have his name removed and began complaining publicly, he said, operators retaliated against him.

Galvez said he launched his own site, Offendextortion.com, as a way to fight back. He said Rodrick sued his mother as a way to get at him.

Galvez said two jurors told him after the trial that his conviction and background made it hard for them to award him damages. But he said they both wished him well.

None of the eight jurors on Wednesday commented on the case.

A Call 12 for Action investigation 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 the 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 e-mail addresses, posted photographs of their relatives and copied their Facebook friends onto the offender websites.

In court filings, Rodrick repeatedly denied owning the websites.

In March, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge found Rodrick controlled the websites, owned the domain names and was the only person capable of posting and removing information on the sites.

The judge sanctioned Rodrick for violating court orders and for failing to take down posts about Ellis, Flynyn and the Galvezes.

The judge also sanctioned Rodrick's girlfriend Traci Heisig, a court reporter and owner of Desert Hills Reporting in Phoenix. The judge said Heisig, who joined Rodrick in defamation lawsuits, willfully refused to comply with court orders.

After she and Rodrick were declared defendants, Heisig was dismissed from the case.

Rodrick's former partner, Brent Oesterblad, testified 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 are backed by court and financial records.

Rodrick and Oesterblad, both of whom were convicted on fraud-related charges in the early 1990s, were at the center of state and federal lawsuits. Sex offenders and others named on the websites have accused them of running an extortion racket. Rodrick and Oesterblad are also accused of posting inaccurate or old information and using the threat of exposure as leverage in their operation.

Lawyers for Ellis, Flynn and the Galvezes credited Oesterblad with coming forward and providing crucial financial and operational data about the websites. They described his testimony as articulate and truthful. Claims filed against him in the Maricopa County case were dropped.

Rodrick, who represented himself in court, painted himself as a victim.

"It's not easy to be a defendant when you were the plaintiff," he said in a rambling closing argument Wednesday in which he denied ownership of the websites, argued about the amount of money they generated and complained about various court rulings.

Offendex and related extortion sites are getting sued by CA-RSOL

In recent months, I have been getting a lot of complaints about a website called "Offendex", a privately run registry in which individuals who have served their sentences and have gotten off the public registry find themselves on this private list, and they are solicited a rather large fee to be taken off one of their many websites. This is an obvious scam, as individuals who have paid Offendex have found themselves reposted on other sites linked to this one, such as SOR Archives, which is owned by Offendex.

This takes the harassment of Evil Unveiled and takes it to a whole new level. This business has already been exposed by the blog "OffendExtortion.", which is out at much of the activity of this organization. my belief is if this website is to successfully, it could open the doors for suing other organizations like Perverted Justice, Absolute Zero United, and Evil Unveiled.

http://californiarsol.org/2013/03/california-rsol-challenges-websites-in-federal-district-court/


California Reform Sex Offender Laws Challenges Websites in Federal District Court

3-20-2013 California:

California Reform Sex Offender Laws (CA RSOL) filed a lawsuit in federal district court today challenging websites which identify individuals as sex offenders and include their personal information, including names, photos, and home addresses as well as demand up to $500 for removal of that information from the websites.

“It is time to stop the extortion of more than 750,000 individuals in this country,” stated Janice Bellucci,President of CA RSOL. “Those who work for or with these websites have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern of racketeering activities.”

According to the lawsuit,individuals connected with three websites – Offendex, Online Detective and SORarchives– have violated both federal and state laws. The laws include the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.), the right of publicity (California Civil Code 3344)as well as the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

“We’ve heard so many stories of people who have completed their registration period and yet are unable to move on with their lives,” stated Brenda Jones, Executive Director of Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc. “The only way they can be free is to submit to the extortion of profiteers like Offendex and that is simply appalling.”

There are a total of 10 plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including residents from five states (California, Washington,Oregon, Kentucky and Tennessee). Plaintiffs include individuals convicted of sex-related offenses as well as one wife and one mother who have never been convicted of a crime.

“For-profit companies that provide false information about a former offender cause collateral damage to the families of offenders,” stated Vicki Henry, Director of Women Against Registry. “The additional financial burdens placed on the families by the companies that require a fee for removal from their website and the misinterpretation of the individual significantly limit the employment opportunities of a former offender.”

The lawsuit was filed today in U.S.District Court, Central District of California, Western Division in Los Angeles, California. Organizations providing support, including financial support, to this effort include Women Against Registry, Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc., and Families Against the Registry.