Tuesday, May 20, 2014

I could have been an RSO...

The following was sent to us via the "Tell Us Your Story" form and posted with the users permission.

By Notanso:
In 1980, I owned a small convenience store in a small Florida town.

A 17 year old, local boy, asked me for a part time job. The priority to him, was not the pay, but to get away from his abusive alcoholic mother.

He was a good worker at stocking the shelves in the store. One day, I received 2 complimentary tickets to a one day off shore cruise. Knowing it would be full of kids, I invited the boy to go with me.

Since I had been working daily in the store, I eagerly closed it for the one day.

I stayed on the top deck and slept the majority of the time.

The boy had one great time meeting so many other kids on the cruise. At the end of the day, driving home, the boy could not stop talking about how great it was to do something he never had the chance or money to do. It was a great day for him and a relaxing day for me.

As we drove back to his home, the police were waiting. They took the boy aside and me a short distance away.

I was questioned by the police as to what my relationship was with the boy. I explained innocently that we went on a free cruise sponsored by one of the store vendors. Throughout the questioning, it never dawned on me that I had done anything wrong until the mother started yelling – “your 24 – going after my 17 year old boy.”

I corrected her – no – I am not 24 – I am 38! It still never dawned on me that I did anything inappropriately.

Then I heard the boy yelling at this mother. “Every time someone wants to do something nice for me – you interfere. You drunken whore. You never want me to have anything good in my life. I hate you.”

Then the police said that is all and left.

This was 30 years ago – long before I ever knew anything about what a sex offender is.

It is only recently that I realized – I too could have been a sex offender – if it had not been for this teen-age boy to stand up to his mother and tell the truth.

You never know who is going to accuse an innocent person.

I could have been falsely accused.

Tomorrow – it could be you.

Is there truth about Justice or is justice like our constitution

The following was sent to us via the "Tell Us Your Story" form and posted with the users permission.

By James:
I have voiced my story about my sex offense on here in months past and consider you all good understanding people. While all our offenses may be different we are all under the sex registry.

My offense may seem to be the bottom of the list as compared to some on here but ever trail every person goes thru they learn something... This is an article I wrote and a part of my true story, but at the same time its also an article about truth and justice.

I hope you all read this as I am gonna try to get it published in the newspaper or get a friend to do this for me..... it is time to let the public know that sex offenders are all not what Government portrays us as:

Is there truth about Justice or is justice like our constitution a thing of the past.

Can people get justice today with a watered down plea deal?

While plea deals are generic today do they really get at justice or are they just one sided in favor of the state? The answer to this question would be the latter, they are one sided affairs and the truth is only half truth so when one is taking the oath to tell the truth what God are they swearing to, the God of Man or the God of Creation.

While plea bargains or plea deals are a mean's to spare the justice system time and speed up and reduce caseloads in hearing one's case, it does not do justice for the person that is falsely accused in serious matters. State's evidence is one thing but blind justice is another.

There are two sides to every coin and two sides to every event and circumstance surrounding a criminal case.

Take for instance a simple internet sex sting operation thats done thru the computer in the efforts to ensnare "would be predators" that pray on children.

While internet chatting has been a social experience since its acceptance back in the 80's there are a lot of men and women that go to adult chat rooms to relax, unwind, have a spicy or romantic chat, make new friends, etc , but there is a dark side to the internet that some take advantage of for their material gain.

The old addage of children should be seen and not heard has taken on a new meaning with the use of the internet. Yes, there are teen chat rooms, kids chat rooms , and at the same time their are adult chatrooms all in their respective order.

There are even safety rules in place on adult chatrooms, one site I know of has guidelines that one has to be 18 to be on its site and its even states that in their rules and sign up procedures. Yes, it is a safety rule as kids have no business on adult chat site's.

Now enter the police officer on an adult chat site's possing as teenager and using everything in their book of tricks to get an adult to chat with them.

The first question that comes to mind is what is a kid doing in an adult chat room? And when asked why they can't find someone there own age to chat with will use a ruse and lie to get one to talk to them, some people will feel sorry for them and get caught up in this game that they play. A lot of adults are dupable believe it or not.

Now common sense would be that the adult was actually looking for an adult to chat with that is why they were in an an adult chat room to start with.

So the other obvious question would be: why is this kid on here soliciting or looking to chat in an adult chatroom?

Why isn't the teenager in a teenage chat room where they should be?

You know. as I said, people can be dupable and one has to question others on the internet especially when a teenager is in an adult chat room which is totally out of character to start with.

Now adult's go to adult chat sites to have adult fun to have conversations of an adult nature, to relax, and talk and meet others but when a person con's someone, when you ask why they cannot find some there own age to talk to and makes up stories and lies' for their own gain than its a different story and yes people are guliable.

Yes I am talking about the police that are suppose to protect and serve but are creating situations to entrap otherwise law abiding citizens. In other words their breaking the law to enforce the law, there creating a situation by duping others in there game of cat and mouse.

With today's schools that talk about social chatting on the internet and safety precausions that one has to use it would appear that kids would use common sense. Believe it or not in this day and age kids are smart about internet usage.

Now police do not use common sense but will ensnare someone because of his or her agenda to snag a "would be predator."

If someone uses a ruse to make you think there home alone and uses that again one would have to wonder about that and question that? Yes, that teenage person will wear one down and do everything to get them off guard to get them under their control. Even if one ask to back out they will still do their best to control you.

Now the main goal of all these operations is for the person to ask for sex from this so called teenage/cop teaser.

While we all make wrong judgements and even the court systems make wrong judgements, and yes court systems are human like everyone else or seem to be. They seem to have a higher God that protects them and I think that higher God is the supreme court, but they fail to understand human suffering, bibical teachings, and go against everything that the police code of ethic's stands for, or what real truth is all about. Going under cover is one thing but lying is another and lying has no place in the court room or law and order.

Now all this is covered up in the name of safety, which most modern day schools teach internet kid's safety at schools.

Since they have taken prayer out of schools, internet safety should be the biggy on the list.

Last but not least we all grow up and are taught not to tell a lie but when you become a police officer you have all authority to lie even God gives you authority to lie and bear false wittness or so it seems.

AZ - Jury awards $3.4M to victims of sex-offender websites

Original Article (Video available)


By Robert Anglen

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.

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, gentlemen, 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," she said.

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, pleaded guilty to child molestation in 1996. The jury did not award him any damages, dismissing his claims against Rodrick.

_____ 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, Flynn 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 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 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.

See Also: