Friday, August 15, 2014

Oh, look, the hackorrists at Anonymous fucked up. Again.

I can't stand the term "hacktivist." "Hackorrist" would be more befitting a group like Anonymous. So Anonymous screwed up and put the wrong officer's life in danger in the Ferguson shooting incident.

Let me remind you that I'm not a fan of the police by any means. I support sites like Cop Block. I protested the FOP convention in my city of residence last summer. I also live in a city that has had an issue with race relations. Living in the hood for a few years, I understand the difficulty in trying to maintain peace between the races (both sides have their beliefs about the races and can be racist). It is a volatile situation.

However, in a sensitive incident like the Ferguson MO shooting, it is helpful to have the right info, given that rioting and civil unrest has occurred there.

In the midst of this, some members of Anonymous (because they aren't a collective unit but a bunch of dumbasses using the same group name) proudly proclaimed a man by the name of Bryan Willman was the officer who killed the black teenager in Ferguson:

A Twitter account associated with the hacktivist collective Anonymous said on Thursday that they've named the officer who killed Brown, 18, over the weekend, and have posted photographs purported to be of the man.

Law enforcement has thus far been unwilling to publicize the name of the officer involved in the shooting death despite calls from the public and press alike. Hackers and activists affiliated with the internationally-dispersed Anonymous collective have vowed to disclose the cop’s identity if officials declined to do so on their own, however, and on Thursday said that Willman is the officer responsible.

“St. Louis County PD claims Bryan Willman doesn't work for them or #Ferguson PD. We'll see about that,” TheAnonMessage Twitter account tweeted early Thursday.

Moments later at 11:00 am CST, the same account posted screenshots alleged to have come from Willman’s personal Facebook account earlier this week, and outted him as the shooter.

“But the job title says it all. Guessing everyone is forgetting about that,” responded a follower.

“You have a good point. All changed!!” replied Willman.

Earlier Thursday, the official Twitter account for the St. Louis County Police Department declined that Willman was an employee of either their office or the Ferguson PD...

Hacktivists involved in the Anonymous campaign known as #OpFerguson told RT’s Andrew Blake on Thursday that they would continue to steadily release information about the officer they believe to have killed Brown, and promised to post his address and other personal information later in the day if law enforcement failed to name the officer on their own.

When asked if the collective is confident they’ve identified the shooter, one Anon answered: “They shouldn't leave anyone to guess. Period.”

“The US government misfires and accidentally kills citizens all the time, especially overseas, and no one bats an eye. But if a wrong name is released because THEY refuse to release one? That's cool, because we don't have the data they do,” one Anon involved in #OpFerguson told Blake.

Of course, it has been later revealed that the officer at the center of this controversy is named Darren Wilson, and that the shooting victim was actually the prime suspect on a strong-arm robbery, and that was the impetus for the confrontation that led to Mike Brown's death. Feelings on this incident aside, my focus is on the fact that Anonymous members claimed the wrong man was responsible for Mike Brown's death. Even though I'm no fan of cops, the act of publishing this man's name and personal info while proclaiming the man to be a racist killer has potentially disastrous consequences.

While the Washington Post seems reluctant to criticize Anonymous even after their major gaffe, the New York Times was far more critical of the group:

Members of Anonymous — the shadowy, snide international collective of hackers and online activists — have played a key role in the growing confrontation outside St. Louis over Mr. Brown’s death, goading and threatening the authorities, and calling the effort Operation Ferguson.

Operations in the collective’s decade-long history have included taking down the World Cup website to protest poverty, helping identify assailants in a rape case in Ohio, cheering on the Occupy Wall Street movement and carrying out coordinated cyberassaults on repressive foreign governments. But this one ran into trouble faster than most.

The St. Louis police said on Twitter that the name given out was wrong, and that the man was not even a police officer. Within Anonymous there was an unusual amount of dissent. In interviews, in private chat channels and on Twitter, members accused those who had initially posted details of producing faulty information and putting one another in harm’s way by openly chatting about their methods online.

On Thursday, Twitter suspended @TheAnonMessage, the account that had posted the dubious information about the officer, although Twitter officials declined to say why. Those behind the account said in an email that they would post information from a backup account, @TheAnonMessage2, while other Twitter accounts affiliated with Anonymous tried to distance themselves from the post.

“But for the record, one last time. Operation Ferguson has NOT, repeat NOT released the name of Mike Brown’s killer, nor have we claimed to,” the individual behind the Operation Ferguson account said on Twitter.

Gabriella Coleman, an anthropologist who studies Anonymous and teaches at McGill University in Montreal, said she was taken aback that members of Anonymous would be so quick to release unverified information, and would speak so openly about their methods in online chat channels.

“My jaw was dropping,” Ms. Coleman said, reading members’ communications. “I was surprised because what I was seeing was suggestive but not definitive. Anonymous tends to care about its image quite a bit, and if they were wrong, it would be really bad.”

In private chat channels early Thursday, she said, members argued about the release of a photo of a man who resembled one of the officers at the scene of Mr. Brown’s shooting...

Members assert that the organization is not a group but a loose collective working to advance similar ideals — but sometimes contradictory ones. While Anonymous espouses privacy, its members also use the release of others’ personal information as a tactic in cases where they believe the authorities are not acting in the public interest, or the news media has not released pertinent information. Members are quick to condemn any individual who claims to speak for the entire collective, and dissent and infighting are common.

Members also sought to explain the internal bickering and uncoordinated communications.

“For those new to Anonymous, it’s a global collective of millions of autonomous individuals and groups,” an Operation Ferguson post on Twitter said. “Each is responsible for themselves only.”...

Some members were desperate in their pleas this week that the man’s photo not be released until more definitive information had been gathered. Ultimately, some members held a vote and decided to release the photo.

But within hours, many had backtracked. Some openly said the “dox” — a hacking term for the release of an individual’s personal information — had been wrong. “The original dox were faulty, it happens, an excess of zeal,” one Anonymous member said in a direct message on Twitter.

The infighting seemed to have taken its toll. Those behind the @TheAnonMessage2 account, who were behind the initial disclosures, had grown considerably more circumspect.

I do find it ironic that Anonymous, a group that loves anonymity, uses public disclosure of info that should be private as an intimidation tactic. It is just like a certain public registry.

It makes me wonder how often Anonymous messes things up, like that time they accused Amy Lee of Evanescence of being "pro-pedophile".

Anonymous is full of people who are smart with computers but dumb with much of everything else in life. The term for such people is "idiot savant."

I prefer to just say they fucked up.

Saturday, August 9, 2014

The people's voice is angry: Outcry over sex offender's release fires up social media — but when does the fire get out of control?

So when do those idiotic rants from online vigilantes cross the line? Apparently, they can say a LOT before they are taken sriously.

http://muscatinejournal.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/the-people-s-voice-is-angry-outcry-over-sex-offender/article_b2d3dfad-e4ac-57f2-b7ba-57597935dc7b.html

The people's voice is angry: Outcry over sex offender's release fires up social media — but when does the fire get out of control?

By Sarah Tisinger

MUSCATINE, Iowa — When a 23-year-old Muscatine man convicted of lascivious acts with a child was released from prison after serving  four years of a 15-year sentence, the People of Muscatine exploded.

The outrage began after a July 30 post that appeared on the People of Muscatine Facebook page began taking on a life of its own. The post by the page's administrator was asking about the release of Robert A. Howard from prison. Howard was sentenced to prison in 2010 after being found guilty of sexually abusing his girlfriend's baby son.

It didn't take long before responses to the post included death threats, graphic descriptions of bodily mutilation, and even jokes about Howard's arrest. The anger wasn't directed entirely at Howard. One post said that the child's mother should be "stomped." Another person, who posted a defense of Howard, was the target of outrage: "I guess Jessica needs to have her baby molested by this [man] to feel different."

The original post, and others after it, generated several hundred comments, nearly 50,000 views, and attracted the attention of  KWQC-TV, who reported on Howard's release under the headline, "Child sex offender released early from prison."

What got lost in the public's outcry was the fact that Howard's release wasn't really early. He was released exactly when the law allowed.

The case began in 2010 when Howard, then 19, was charged with second-degree sexual abuse and child endangerment following a confession in which he admitted sexually abusing his girlfriend's 17-month-old boy.

He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison on the charges. The charges were punishable by up to 30 years in prison and he was not eligible for parole until he served at least 17 1/2 of those years.

However, Howard appealed the charges and the case eventually ended up in the Iowa Supreme Court, where the judges granted him a new trial because, according to court documents, "The Detective promised leniency for a confession, which was admitted during trial. The State failed to establish Howard was not prejudiced by the erroneous admission of his confession. Accordingly, the error was not harmless, and Howard is entitled to a new trial on the charge of child endangerment."

During the new trial, Howard pleaded guilty to the amended charges of lascivious acts with a child and child endangerment causing injury. He was sentenced to up to 15 years in prison. He served four of those years at the Mount Pleasant Correctional Facility, a medium security institution designed for the treatment of men with character disorders, substance offenses, and sexual offenders.

Muscatine County Attorney Alan Ostergren said that Howard was not released early but received credit for time served after his arrest in January 2010, and also received earned time, as per Iowa code. 

"He will have essentially served the maximum time allowed under the rules for credit for earned time — 1.1 days of credit for every day served. He will be on supervised release for the remainder of his life. He will also have to register as a sex offender," said Ostergren.

Ardyth Orr, captain with the Muscatine Sheriff's Office, has handled county sex offender cases since 2009 and said that as far as prison time goes, Howard spent more time than most. 

"What we see coming out of the Department of Corrections is that inmates are serving about 10 percent of the time they're sentenced to. I think that's something people don't realize," said Orr, who believes that the prisons are simply full so the DOC is granting earned time. "When you're the victim of any crime you want them to spend incarceration time that they were sentenced; it's very confusing to people."

The fact that Howard served what the law said he had to hasn't caused cooler heads to prevail online though. But, according to Lt. Jeff Jirak of the Muscatine Police Department, while people have to right to say what they want on social media, they should exercise caution.

"In all of our cases, we have to corroborate what people are saying, especially if it's over social media," said Jirak. "It's unlikely we would base a charge solely on what's being said on social media. Anybody can put anything out there; we try to police it the best we can but we have limitations. We certainly are interested in any death threats and assaultive behavior."

When contacted by the Journal for a response to the furor generated over the initial post, the page's administrator did not wish to be quoted for the story by name. But in a July 31 post, he did warn users to watch what they say: "Note: I take no responsibility of what happens from this post. I'm not the person wishing harm on this man. You guys can argue amongst yourselves but please don't make this page the cause of any actions after this posting. Some of you should probably watch what you type here."

Some Facebook users have made posts claiming to have seen Howard in Muscatine, even posting the vehicle description and license plate number of the car he was believed to have been seen in and the restaurants he visited. Howard's most recent registration on the Iowa sex offender registry has him listed as living in Clinton.

However, since the posters were not following Howard and he was in the public view, this behavior isn't legally considered stalking, harassment or defamation of character. 

Orr said sex offenders are still allowed to spend the night in places other than their registered counties. 

"I tell the offenders if they're going to be gone for three or four days, they should report it to me. The law is to report anything longer than five business days," said Orr. "It's best for the offender and for the community. That way everyone is on the same playing field. The crime [Howard] was found guilty of does not have living restrictions. He may have some employment restrictions and can't loiter outside the library or go to the public swimming pool. But he can live right next to any one of those."

As for what the public is allowed to do when it comes to sex offenders? They can remain vigilant and report suspicious activity to the police. They can keep a close watch on their own children and teach them to steer clear of strangers. They can keep tabs on where sex offenders live. But taking the law into their own hands puts them at risk of having the cuffs slapped on those hands.

"As the law reads, there has to be specific examples of harassing the person directly," said Jirak of people's actions toward Howard so far. "I may or may not like what happened to this individual, that's not for me to say, but he has rights now that he's out [of prison]. With those rights, doesn't he have protection from someone threatening his life? Nobody in this country has the legal right to threaten another person's life."

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Vigilante Thug Jay Maynor is not "Hero"; Vigilante Violence is NEVER "Justice"

Jeremy and Christine Moody -- Skinhead "Heroes"
How do we rehabilitate a sex offender? They cannot be fixed, what they can do, is convinced the Psychologists that they are ‘fixed’ and they are safe to be released into society. The only cure for child abusers and molesters is to have every member of their immediate family killed. These nefarious crimes and people should not be allowed to procreate. By destroying their immediate family members, you purify the blood line. This is the only way to ensure that they (the pervert or family) cannot ever hurt a child again. Liberals will think that these statements are immature and that I must be empty headed. How many people consider the children that were abused or molested? What about the mental destruction that this child has to live with for the rest of their lives? How these children will find it difficult to ever trust another person. How these children may possibly never be able to have children of their own, because they were raped so severe, that it damaged them permanently? I don't think my suggestion is immature, I think it's the only answer, and if you don't agree, then you two should be destroyed[i].” – Jeremy Moody, “Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” Lulu Publishing, 2012. p.5

On Sunday, June 8, 2014, Jay Maynor[ii] of Cullman, Alabama shot and killed Raymond Earl Brooks, a registered citizen, who had served time for a sex crime against Maynor’s daughter 12 years ago[iii]. As with any story involving so-called “vigilante justice,” there are plenty of individuals coming out of the woodwork proclaiming this man a “hero.” The killer’s family has set up a Facebook page[iv] and a defense fund[v], and has raised $1500 in 10 days (the listed goal is $5000). A few of the comments from the fundraiser page are frightening and disturbing indeed:

There is no room in this world for pedophiles. They cannot be rehabilitated, and there is no cure. They should all be chucked off a boat and left for sharks.” – Holly Perkins

We have several sexual offenders living around us. Unless they start neutering them, I am with Mr. Maynor kind of justice.” – Kat Perry, who donated $5.00

As a survivor of abuse I support Mr. Maynor for seeking justice for his daughter. This demon should have never been allowed to walk the streets again, to have the chance to abuse another child. You are a hero to me Mr. Maynor.” – Jeanna Phillips, who donated $20.00

Jay Maynor's Mugshot
A woman by the name of Kayla Maddux[vi], whose Facebook picture is a blue variation of the “Keep Calm” internet meme proclaiming “Keep Calm and Free Jaybird,” posted a comment to detractors at the Cullman Times, stating, “Dont [sic] go trying to tell facts when you dont know them.” When has the lack of facts stop the mass media from exploiting the tragedy for ratings? Even though the AP story didn’t mention the shooter’s name to “protect the victim’s identity,” they had no reservations posting the victim’s mug shot and proclaim him a sex offender[vii]. The lack of details didn’t stop Catherine Connors, an executive with the Walt Disney Company and “award winning blogger,” from writing a post on the Nancy Grace HLN site hinting that what Maynor did, although legally wrong, is understandable and she would be tempted to do the same thing. Connors states, “I know, if something like this happened to me, I might be tempted to do wrong, too[viii].” Michelle Lund from CrimeJail.com called the victim’s father a “pedo-sympathizer” and claimed that Cullman County Sheriff Mike Rainey cares more about sex offenders than “a father who had to watch her child suffer[ix].” Dr. Drew’s “Behavioral Bureau” also added their two cents[x]. HLN is notorious for focusing on stories such as this one.

The Dr. Drew show deserves a more in-depth critique. I have had the privilege of taking on Dr. Drew’s “Behavior Bureau” on two occasions in the past year. This is how the Bureau works – the show invites a panel of personalities to come on the show to discuss various topics, and not all of the panelists have explicit knowledge of the subject at hand. For this particular episode, the panelists were Leeann Tweeden, a TV sportscaster for poker and baseball’s Anaheim Angels, Anahita Sedaghatfar, a civil defense attorney and TV analyst, and Jason Ellis, a journeyman MMA fighter (who only fought two matches) who hosts a show on Sirius XM radio. Out of three individuals, only one has any degree of criminal justice experience, so the outcome of the show should come as no surprise.

Defense attorney Anahita Sedaghatfar stated she was against vigilante violence and that we can't be allowed to take the law into our own hands, but in the end, she still stated, “I would definitely defend [Maynor]. I think he has a strong case for mitigation in terms of sentencing.” As expected, the discussion simply went downhill from this point. Leeann Tweeden stares glaringly into the camera and proudly proclaims, “You do that to my child, I will shoot you in the head.” Jason Ellis gave the strangest statement of all. So, I don`t wanna -- I already said what I had to say, this -- when you bring up the extra -- I mean, I didn`t remember until I was 40 who the guy was that molested me. So, I didn`t know until I was about 26 that I`d been molested. I had to take a bunch of acid and they also recall it. Then, at 40 I find out who it is, because my body can`t even handle knowing who it is. You did that to that girl in that fashion, I don`t need to be related to the girl, I`ll kill him right now [xi].” It is interesting that Jason Ellis just stated that he “recalled” abuse that happened decades ago. (The False Memory Syndrome[xii] controversy continues, but that is a discussion for a different day.) The point is whether we want a person who took headshots for a living (like Ellis) or some “eye-candy” model who peddles her body for a living (like Weeden) to dictate the rules of society, especially not knowing the whole story behind the murders.

Returning to Kayla Maddux’s statement about knowing “all the facts,” supplemental articles have put together the facts. This is the complete story up until this point. The day of the murder, Jay Maynor got into an argument with his stepdaughter’s boyfriend (investigators say there was “bad blood” between the two men), and apparently, somewhere along the way, the boyfriend used the sexual abuse narrative to criticize Maynor, sending him into a rage. Maynor pulled out a gun and shot into the Berlin Quick Mart gas station where the boyfriend was sitting. Painter then went to the home of Raymond Earl Brooks and ambushed him, killing him in the home of his parents. The defense made the claim that a “catalyst” or “triggering event” that should considered mitigating factors for lowering his bail[xiii].

It is rather ironic that the term “trigger” was used Maynor’s defense since pulling a gun trigger landed Maynor in jail. The term “Trigger Warning” (or TW for short) is a relatively new buzzword. “In the area of mental health, a trigger is something which causes instant distress in a vulnerable person. If you know what can trigger a bad reaction, you can try to avoid those triggers in the same way that someone with an allergy might take steps to avoid dogs.” Trigger warnings first appeared on feminist websites to flag up stories of abuse[xiv]. This word is particularly dangerous because, in the words of Rhiannon Cosslett, triggers “smacked to me of victimhood.” Cosslett does not believe triggers hinder free speech, but states, “they do display an increasingly nannying approach to language that is being used to shut down discourse and to silence. Often, it is coupled with a sense of passive aggressive glee…I do not doubt that they are of enormous service to survivors with specific triggers likely to reoccur on feminist websites, but it has got to a point now where I feel women I have never met are trying to wrap me in cotton wool, and I detest that. PTSD can make you hypersensitive and hyper-aware…[xv]”Furthermore, trigger words perpetuates cultural victimhood; as one example, college campuses are considering placing trigger warnings on classic literature because people do not like feeling even slightly uncomfortable. As one RT reporter proclaimed, “Our kids WANT to be nannied. They WANT to be protected, and feel safe, and coddled [xvi].” And fear justifies some very atrocious behavior, like canonizing a man who shoots into a business establishment because he later killed a pariah of society.

When society canonizes a vigilante, society overlooks a lot of things; however, we should not forget Maynor’s actions have harmed many people, not just the murdered Registrant. Those victimized by Maynor’s actions found Maynor to be anything but heroic.

At Maynor’s bond hearing, “Cullman County District Attorney Wilson Blaylock called two witnesses, Jeremy Trimble and Bobby Weeks, who were present for the gas station shooting. Trimble testified he was present in the store at the time of the shooting and claimed one of the stray bullets came within 10 feet of hitting his child. ‘I was alarmed for my son’s safety and it made my heart stop,” he said. “He tried to shoot someone and shot another man.’Weeks was attending a child’s birthday party at the karaoke business located beside the gas station and said he heard a gun shot then looked outside to see Maynor with a gun drawn chasing another man. At that point, Weeks said he gathered the children together and took them inside for safety. ‘It sounded like he was yelling, ‘Come here you motherfucker,’ Weeks testified. ‘It scared me and the kids[xvii].’”

Jay Maynor shows us how he feels about society's rules
“Mike Hays, who cooks and operates a small barbecue restaurant inside Berlin Plaza Quick Stop, where the shooting occurred, said he came face-to-face with the shooter after the man opened fire outside and then entered the store looking for his intended victim, who wasn't hurt. ‘People here are calling him a hero for killing a child molester. I'm calling him a psychopathic lunatic for endangering peoples' lives, including mine,’ Hays said. After stopping his motorcycle at an intersection outside the store, the father fired once at a man who was standing beside an ice cooler, Hays said. The bullet entered an exterior wall of the store and chipped a window but no one was injured. Hays said he retrieved his own weapon and confronted [Maynor] near the cash register. ‘He had the gun down by his side. He was calm, as calm as you are standing there now. But he had that look in his eye,’ said Hays. ‘I have no problem with him shooting a child molester, just not 12 years later. If it was my daughter he would have died back in 2002[xviii].’”

“Brooks' father, Ralph Brooks, told WBRC-TV in Birmingham that his son did not deserve to die. He said Raymond Earl Brooks turned his life around after his conviction and lived a godly life that included being active in his church. Because his son's conviction happened so long ago, he said he couldn't be sure if the shooting was a form of revenge. ‘It would be unbelievable to hold animosity in your heart for 12 years,’ Brooks said[xix].”

It should not be surprising with anyone that Jay Maynor had a criminal history. Maynor had made several court appearances over the years—once for DUI and three times for domestic violence (though the domestic violence charges were eventually dropped). It is laughable Maynor’s defense attorney brought these prior charges up in attempt to show the court that Maynor would come to court responsibly and should thus receive a lower bond. Thankfully bail was not reduced[xx].

This story has played out numerous times over the years. This brings me to the statement by Jeremy Moody at the beginning of this article. Moody’s proclamation could have been written just as easily by any anonymous commenter. But Moody’s proclamation was written in a self-written skinhead manifesto, alongside discussions on racial purity and ethnic cleansing. (Ironically, the head of Moody’s skinhead group, known as “Crew 41,” is a Registered Citizen[xxi].) Patrick Drum, who murdered two registrants in Washington State in 2012, had 47 criminal convictions over a 15 year period, including assault, drug, and burglary charges. One of his victims landed on the list for a consensual act with a teen when he was 17 years old. Drum and the Moody clan were unrepentant thugs with disgusting pasts. Had they killed anyone else, society would not have given any of them a second thought except to call for the heads of these men on a silver platter. But because their victims were Registered Citizens, people want to give murderers a free pass.
Even the Neo-Nazi skinhead Jeremy Moody had support from the public, as illustrated by this statement from a CNN commenter:

Kimberly269life – “In this case the dude had been convicted of a sex crime on a child!where is the good old killemall mindset we normally apply to pedophiles?What is your prob people? Pedophilia is a well known incurable condition-even castration doesn not cure this despicable condition in many men! He def needed killing.His wife on the other hand seems to have been collateral damage-but thats the price you pay for being connected to child molesters! Its true that many wives allow crimes against children-their own and others-by doing nothing and turning away.They are culpable.They are helping ! Nazis and other white supremists are really disgusting people-yes-but the pedophile is probably even lower ...frankly its a win/win from what I can see[xxii]” [Kimberly’s grammatical errors included]

The vigilante violence and the people who support them are definitive proof the registry, or any degree of public disclosure of Registered Citizens in the community, should be abolished. Until the registry is abolished, we will see this same story play out repeatedly in the coming years. Patt Morrison from the LA Times says, “Justice in a democracy cannot be some tit-for-tat clan vendetta, or determined by bribes or bias. It must be the dispassionate act of the people and the state, whose good order and laws have been violated. Vigilante justice erodes the authority and regard for a legal system that can’t be about vengeance or passion… And when an Alabama father or a California mother usurps that role, they are not heroes, because vengeance is not justice. And justice, not just someone’s child, becomes a victim too[xxiii].”The registry is a “catalyst” and a “trigger event” that enrages the community, and when a person is assaulted or murdered because of this registry, justice is perverted.




[i] http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/jeremy-moody/yesterday-today-forever/paperback/product-20441110.html
[ii] In terestingly enough, the AP did not publish the perpetrator’s name, stating “The Associated Press doesn't identify victims of sex crimes, and it isn't naming the man charged with murder to protect his daughter's identity.” Yet, they published the victim's name and picture and proclaimed him a sex offender. See Jay Reeves, “ALABAMA MAN CHARGED IN SLAYING GAINS SUPPORT.” AP, June 10, 2014. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/alabama-man-charged-slaying-gains-support
[iii] Trent Moore, “Cullman man charged with murder in Berlin shooting.” Cullman Times, June 9, 2014. http://www.cullmantimes.com/breakingnews/x1396881180/Cullman-man-charged-with-murder-in-Berlin-shooting
[iv] https://www.facebook.com/pages/Family-Friends-and-Supporters-of-Jay-Maynor/325444844270469
[v] http://www.gofundme.com/a51e8g
[vi] Apparently Kayla the daughter of Jay Maynor, though she does not list him as her father on her Facebook page.
[vii] Jay Reeves, “ALABAMA MAN CHARGED IN SLAYING GAINS SUPPORT.” AP, June 10, 2014. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/alabama-man-charged-slaying-gains-support
[viii] Catherine Commons, “Avenging a horrid crime: Right, but still wrong?” HLN, June 18, 2014. http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/06/18/catherine-connors-dad-kills-sex-offender-two-wrongs-right
[ix] Michelle Lund, “Jay Maynor, Hero Shoots Man Who Molested His Daughter.” CrimeJail.com, June 14, 2014. http://crimejail.com/jay-maynor-hero-shoots-man-abused-daughter/
[x] Dr. Drew staff, “Father charged in shooting death of daughter's molester.” HLN, June 12, 2014. http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/06/12/father-kills-daughter-sex-offender-decade-later
[xi] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1406/12/ddhln.01.html
[xii] http://www.fmsfonline.org/
[xiii] Trent Moore, “Maynor’s attorney: ‘Trigger event’ caused shooting, seeking bail reduction.” June 12, 2014. http://www.cullmantimes.com/breakingnews/x998005628/Maynor-s-attorney-Trigger-event-caused-shooting-seeking-bail-reduction
[xiv] “Trigger warnings: What do they do?” BBC, Feb. 24, 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-26295437
[xv] Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, “Why I don’t agree with trigger warnings.” New Statesman, Jan. 29, 2013. http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2013/01/why-i-dont-agree-trigger-warnings
[xvi] “Our Kids Want to be Nannied. We’re Screwed.” The Resident (Russia Today), May 27, 2014. http://www.theresident.net/our-kids-want-to-be-nannied-were-screwed/
[xvii] Trent Moore, “BREAKING: Bond reduction denied in Maynor murder case.” Cullman Times, June 19, 2014. http://www.cullmantimes.com/breakingnews/x1669975480/BREAKING-Bond-reduction-denied-in-Maynor-murder-case
[xviii] Jay Reeves, “ALABAMA MAN CHARGED IN SLAYING GAINS SUPPORT.” AP, June 10, 2014. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/alabama-man-charged-slaying-gains-support
[xix] Ibid.
[xx] Moore, “Breaking”
[xxi] “Killing Sex Offenders: The Apparent Hypocrisy of Crew 41.” Southern Poverty Law Center, July 29, 2013. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/07/29/killing-sex-offenders-the-apparent-hypocrisy-of-crew-41-2/
[xxii] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/07/justice/south-carolina-neo-nazis-murder-sex-offender/#comment-1378773440
[xxiii] Patt Morrison, “Opinion Does an angry parent killing a child molester ever serve justice?” LA Times, June 17, 2014. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-jay-maynor-ellie-nesler-child-molesters-justice-20140616-story.html

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Evil Unveiled dies from lack of funds and interest


The website was full of lies and unfounded allegations. And for at least two months, the garbage site known as Evil-Unveiled has been offline. 


It was never a useful site to begin with. Essentially it was just junk Perverted-Justice members created to assassinate the characters of their detractors. PJ got rid of the project after they were sued, and a mentally ill disgruntled ex-PJer took the info and created the website.

It seems under independent ownership, interest in the operation was virtually non-existent, so much so even the owner of the site doesn't want to spend the money on optimization. So for now, the trash site is gone. May it stay gone. 

Saturday, May 17, 2014

See-BS Miami gives too much credit to Valerie Parkhurst by calling her an "activist"

Here is the thing, the person at the center of this story did something he shouldn't have done, even if it is legal to do so. However, it should be illegal for people to harass registered citizens, something Valerie Parkhurst is known to do. Yet, the Florida registry website has no disclaimers stating it is illegal to harass or bully registered persons in the state of FloriDUH. The other question: Why, if this man is conveniently in violation of state law at his residence, was he given the green light to move in to begin with? Smells fishy to me.

Val, an "activist?" As much as the KKK are race relations activists.

If Davie PD had some balls, they'd find a way to eliminate this vile piece of slugshit from their city.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/16/police-give-alleged-photo-snapping-sex-offender-30-days-to-relocate/

Police Give Alleged Photo-Snapping Sex Offender 30-Days To Relocate
May 16, 2014 6:05 PM

By: Ted Scouten

DAVIE (CBSMiami) – Police have given a registered sex offender who was seen allegedly taking a photo of a 9-year-old girl, inside of a Publix supermarket, 30-days to find a new residence.
The case began when the mother of the 9-year-old girl, Maria Leon, said she learned about the incident that happened Monday.
“This sex offender started taking pictures of my daughter. She was there with my father. Someone in line saw him doing it and notified my Dad and called the manager.”
Activist Valerie Parkhurst, along with Leon are grateful that stranger noticed and spoke up.
“We need to look out for our fellow human beings,” said Parkhurst.  “It’s just imperative that we look out for one another and be alert for something like this.  These guys are prolific, they’re everywhere.”
Davie Police were alerted and investigated 64-year-old registered sex offender Joseph Fezza.
While police found the picture “inappropriate,” they could find anything illegal about the sex offender’s actions.
Captain Dale Engle of the Davie Police Department said, “Initially he wasn’t truthful. He denied taking pictures. We found pictures of the girl. It was inappropriate but no violation of the law.”
Davie Police checked the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the state of New York and found no provisions barring Fezza from taking such pictures.
They can also not prove Fezza violated the state’s voyeurism law.
“First we have to be able to prove he took the pictures for lewd reasons,” he said. “Second there has to be an expectation of privacy and in such public places as Publix, there is no expectation of privacy.”
Engle said that police deleted the picture they found on Fezza’s phone of Leon’s daughter.
Fezza, however, was told though to stay away from the supermarket and police said he was given a 30-day notice of violation of a city ordinance that as a sexual offender he lives within certain distance of a school, daycare or park.
A manager where Fezza lived told CBS4 Friday that he has been evicted.
Leon plans to join other mothers Saturday at 8:30 a.m. in passing out flyers about the sex offender being in the area of Pines Boulevard just east of University Drive where Fezza lived. Parkhurst is an activist.  She plans to join the protest and pass out flyers.  “Normal people don’t do this.  this guy isn’t normal.  he got caught.”
Leon told CBS4’s Peter D’Oench, “It is disgusting. I am angry. I am really determined to warn other parents that this is happening.”
A warning was posted on Facebook about Fezza for parents in the area of Davie, Hollywood and Pembroke Pines.
Police want to know if anyone has noticed other suspicious activity in the area. Call Crime Stoppers at (954) 493-TIPS.

Maybe that Maria Leon woman should get better associates that the Valcoholic.


Friday, May 16, 2014

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.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Donna Zink strikes out again on suit to release Level 1 Registrant Info

Donna Zink: A picture of
legal failure. 
Donna Zink has tasted defeat again as she lost another bid to obtain the information of Level 1 registrants in Washington state (who ware not listed publicly). The real reason behind this is for her to win money from lawsuits when government agencies refuse to grant her requests. However, since she was publicly disclosing registry info of Level 1 Registrants she has succeeded in obtaining so far, it is obviously Zink was using registrants as pawns in her get-rich-quick schemes.

http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/2090839-8/yakima-county-judge-blocks-release-of-sex-offender

Yakima County judge blocks release of sex offender information
By Donald W. Meyers / Yakima Herald-Republic
dmeyers@yakimaherald.com

YAKIMA, Wash. — A Yakima County judge has blocked the release of names and addresses of low-level sex offenders to a Mesa woman who wants to post the information on a website.

Ruling Friday, Superior Court Judge Blaine Gibson permanently blocked Donna Zink’s request for low-level sex-offender registration forms from the Yakima County Sheriff’s Office. The move had been sought by 22 low-level offenders who said releasing the information would subject them to public scorn and threaten their safety. The ruling covered all low-level offenders who comply with state law, such as registering with authorities, and have permanent addresses.

Zink, who would not speak to reporters afterward, said she would appeal Gibson’s orders, along with similar orders in Benton and King counties denying her requests for Level 1 offender information.

Level 1 sex offenders are considered the least likely to offend again, and their names are typically not posted publicly, except in rare circumstances, and then only released to those who have need for the information. The names of Level 2 and Level 3, those considered most likely to re-offend, are routinely released as they change addresses and are listed in public registries.

Zink filed the request with the Yakima County Sheriff’s Office in November for the registration forms filled out by all Level 1 sex offenders in the county. Zink is trying to assemble a database to be posted online listing all known sex offenders in the state. The sheriff’s office was prepared to release the forms and notified the Level 1 offenders that the information would be made public. Several offenders filed suit to block the release.

As of Friday, there were 674 registered Level 1 offenders in Yakima County, according to a website maintained by the sheriff’s office.

Attorney Greg Scott, who represented the 22 offenders, argued the ruling should apply to all Level 1 offenders, noting that some couldn’t afford attorneys or did not want to step forward and risk exposure.

But Gibson limited his ruling to those in compliance with state law and with permanent addresses. The law allows the sheriff to post the names of transient and homeless offenders, as well as those who are not in compliance with the registration law.

Scott said Gibson’s prohibition on releasing the names would extend to future offenders, since the judge ruled that the forms were exempt from disclosure under the state Public Records Act.

Gibson based his decision on a 1994 state Supreme Court ruling that declared requiring a sex offender to register was not an additional punishment, as long as the state used an offender’s potential for offending again as a factor in determining who should be informed about their past crimes.

“The Supreme Court recognizes that the mere declaration that someone is a sex offender is harmful to the person,” Gibson said. “Even if your neighbor next door has been a good neighbor for 10 years, when you learn that they were a sex offender 20 years ago, it affects how you deal with them.”

Gibson said the fact that the Legislature put some restrictions on distributing Level 1 offender information suggests that it did not intend for the information to be released through public records requests. The law limits notification about Level 1 offenders to law enforcement, schools the offender might attend, and the offender’s victim and witnesses to the crime.

Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Stefanie Weigand, who represented the Yakima County Sheriff’s Office, said there was legitimate public interest in granting Zink’s request. She said the Level 1 classification may mean low risk, but it is not zero risk.

“If (the offenders) were not dangerous, they would not have to register,” Weigand said.

She also noted that their convictions are a matter of public record.

Weigand argued that the Legislature never defined the offender information as exempt under the records act.

While there are some restrictions on posting it to registries, she said it is not exempt from records requests.

Weigand also argued that Yakima County could be legally liable for not granting Zink’s request under the records law.

Zink, who argued her case herself, said Gibson’s ruling turned the registration law on its head, and instead of protecting the public, it was being used to protect offenders’ privacy.

She said it also violated a principle of the state Public Records Act in that if information is released to some people, it has to be released to all.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Offendex (extortion website) is going out of business

This looks like the end of Offendex and affiliate extortion sites. And I'm not surprised that the owners of Offendex are convicted felons. I am amazed they managed to make a lot of money from these websites. The article from AZCentral is incredibly detailed so read on:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/call%252012%2520for%2520action/2014/03/22/scrutiny-suspends-websites-dealings/6761309/

Brent Oesterblad

Scrutiny suspends websites' dealings
Robert Anglen, The Republic | azcentral.com 11:16 p.m. EDT March 22, 2014

A shadowy network of Arizona-based Internet companies that used public records to demand money from sex offenders and harass those who complained has imploded amid lawsuits, court hearings and new standards enacted by banks, social media and technology companies.

The websites, including Offendex.com, SORArchives and Sexoffenderrecord.com, in November stopped seeking payments from people in exchange for removing profiles, blaming the change on "many conflicts, threats, unreasonable requests and false accusations about this website."

The move followed decisions by MasterCard, Visa, Discover and PayPal to stop processing transactions from what many describe as extortion websites. Google also changed its formula to prevent sites from using search-engine algorithms to increase viewership and monetize on public records such as police mugshots.

A Call 12 for Action investigation, published in May, found that the Arizona-based sex-offender sites mined data compiled by law-enforcement agencies across the country and used it to collect money. Operators of the sites did not always take down profiles after payments were made and launched online harassment campaigns against those who balked at financial demands or filed complaints.


ChuckRodrick and Traci Heisig
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 also included names and personal information of people who had never been arrested or convicted of a sex crime.

In an interview with Call 12 for Action last month, website operator Brent Oesterblad accused owner Charles "Chuck" Rodrick of taking elaborate steps to conceal his ownership of the websites and misleading state and federal judges about it. Oesterblad's comments were backed by court testimony and banking records.

"I have personal knowledge that Rodrick has misrepresented the facts of his ownership of the sex-offender websites to his former wife, to the Maricopa County Superior Court and to U.S. District Courts in California and Arizona," Oesterblad said in a affidavit filed last month in federal court.

Rodrick, 52, of Cave Creek, has refused interviews for more than a year and would not speak about the websites after a Feb. 19 court hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Rodrick and Oesterblad, both of whom were convicted on fraud-related charges in the early 1990s, are at the center of several state and two 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.

Rodrick responded to allegations by filing defamation lawsuits against some of his detractors, including his ex-wife and her boyfriend, both of whom were profiled on the sex-offender websites even though neither has a criminal record. Rodrick has also sued their lawyers.

In court filings, Rodrick repeatedly has denied owning the websites. In a federal declaration last year, he said he lacked "ownership interest in any of the companies that own the websites" and does "not have control over the websites as an owner."

Oesterblad told Call 12 for Action 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 records and testimony.

Oesterblad, who defended his work managing the sex-offender sites, said they did not start out as a way to demand money from offenders.

"It wasn't supposed to be a 'take-down' service. It started purely as an alert service," he said in the interview, adding that when the sites failed to make money "(Rodrick) made a command decision ... to do something to generate revenue."

Financial records lay out connection to websites, forensic computer specialist says

Financial records, including checks, credit-card receipts, tax documents and bank-account data, presented in court last month provided a picture of Rodrick's involvement in the websites.

"Whoever is receiving money would have control over the websites," according to Phoenix forensic computer specialist Juan Lorenzana, who testified against Rodrick in Superior Court in February. "Revenue is flowing to him through the websites."

Lorenzana, president of JEL Enterprises Inc., testified it was impossible to track the websites themselves to Rodrick. But money going from the sex-offender websites painted a road map that led directly to Rodrick, Lorenzana testified.

Among the financial transactions detailed in court were tens of thousands of dollars to Rodrick's girlfriend, Traci Heisig.

Heisig, who is a court reporter and owns Desert Hills Reporting in Phoenix, is a joint plaintiff in the defamation suit against Rodrick's ex-wife, her boyfriend and a sex offender in Washington.

Financial records presented in court showed $80,000 from the websites went to help Heisig buy a condominium in Rocky Point, Mexico, and $13,000 to buy her jewelry. The account was also used to make multiple payments of about $5,000 for Heisig's office lease on Camelback Road and for a $5,000 personal check, records showed.

Heisig did not respond to an interview request made through her lawyer.

Lorenzana said in courtthe sex-offender websites generated revenue through two sources: removal fees and ad revenue generated by the sites. Money to Rodrick could be tracked through ClickBank information provided on the websites, Lorenzana said.

ClickBank is a mechanism that generates revenue for websites based on traffic and product promotion. Lorenzana said money from the websites went to bank accounts used by an affiliated company called Civic Sentry, which does business as Web Express Ventures.

According to corporation documents, Oesterblad is the sole manager of Civic Sentry.

Rodrick, who doesn't have a lawyer, repeatedly suggested in court he wasn't the owner of the sites because his name is not on corporation filings. But Lorenzana maintained Rodrick's singular control of the money proved his control and ownership of the websites.

Maricopa County Superior Court judge sets deadline to remove all posts about defendants

Rodrick has been aided in document preparation for his legal fight by a felon who works at a polygraph school, claims to have a background in paralegal work and lists J.D. after her name in a school catalog, implying she has a law degree.

Court records show Kelley Bradbury served eight years in a Colorado prison for theft beginning in 1997.

In her resume for the Polygraph School of Science in Phoenix, Bradbury lists among her credentials a degree in paralegal studies from Rio Salado College. In the current school catalog, she lists her name as "Kelley Bradbury, M.S., J.D."

The State Bar of Arizona has no listing for Bradbury, meaning she is not licensed to practice law in the state. Rio Salado College officials also say records show Bradbury took paralegal classes but never earned a degree.

Officials say she obtained a "certificate of completion in airline operations."

Bradbury did not return multiple calls seeking comment about her background.

E-mails and computer records show Bradbury has assisted Rodrick with court motions. On a Web page, a person named Kelley Bradbury posted comments about one of the people involved in the federal suit against Rodrick and defended the sex-offender websites.

"I feel much safer knowing that sites like www.offendex.com are out there!" a person identified as Bradbury wrote. "If you didn't want your information made public you should not have committed a sex crime!!"

The post could become problematic for Rodrick. The February court hearings involved a request for sanctions against him for posts on websites about defendants in the defamation cases.

In an e-mail this month, a plaintiff in the federal-racketeering case whom Rodrick sued for defamation wrote an e-mail telling Rodrick to remove the content.

"I would request that your ... document preparer remove the slime she has up about me," Adam Galvez of Washington wrote. "She's a part of this case. If she does not remove this I will be informing the court."

While cross-examining witnesses during the hearing, Rodrick repeatedly asserted no evidence existed to show he posted the information to the sites.

But later in the hearing, Rodrick tried to broker a deal, offering to take down the offensive posts.

Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper responded by imposing a deadline for Rodrick to remove all posts about the defendants or face arrest.

On. Feb. 24, Cooper issued a civil arrest warrant for Rodrick, which she later rescinded.

No law-enforcement action taken against operators of sex-offender websites

Call 12 for Action last year found that not all of the people listed on the sex-offender websites are registered sex offenders. Some have no criminal records. Yet their names, addresses and other personal information were put on the sex-offender websites for anyone with an Internet connection to view.

Those who challenged Rodrick and Oesterblad said the interactions frequently turned ugly, with intimidating calls, vitriolic e-mails and threats of lawsuits. Pictures of offenders' family members were posted on the websites along with their addresses. In another case, an offender's Facebook friends were added to the sites.

"Since you like Facebook so much ... we have added your 65 friends to your page on Offendex," an e-mail from website operators stated.

In other cases, the websites profiled offenders whose names had been removed from state sex-offender registries.

State police and departments of correction generally are responsible for maintaining official sex-offender registries, which can include an offender's name, photograph, physical characteristics, addresses and description of the crime.

Sex offenders are sometimes removed from state registries because their crimes have been reclassified and no longer are considered serious enough to require registration. Some offenders are required to register only with law enforcement, and their names would not appear on public registries.

Others have done their time and have sought court orders to remove their names from state and national registries.

The websites advertised records for 750,000 sex offenders. The sites promised to protect families from the menace of sex offenders in their neighborhoods by providing access to present and past criminal records.

Complaints about the websites have been made with attorneys general in at least five states, including Arizona. Complaints also have been submitted to the FBI, the Federal Trade Commission and the Internet Crime Complaint Center, which works with the FBI to refer Internet criminal cases to various agencies.

As of this month, no law-enforcement agency has taken action against Rodrick and Oesterblad over the websites, records show.

Rodrick, 52, and Oesterblad, 53, both have felony convictions on fraud-related charges.

Rodrick pleaded guilty in 1993 to selling illegal cable-television descramblers with fraudulent intent. In 1996, he was sued in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for his role in an Alaskan Ponzi scheme that cost investors as much as $50 million. A final judgment of $58,900 was entered against him. Court records do not show any payments were made.

Oesterblad pleaded guilty in 1992 for his part in a frequent-flier scam operated out of his family's Phoenix travel agency and spent 10 months in a federal prison.

Websites' employee said a dispute over money spurred him to testify in civil cases

The sex-offender websites were built using data copied directly from official law-enforcement websites, Call 12 found.

Eric Souhrada, a former Tempe software developer and computer engineer now living in California, said in an interview last year that he designed the sex-offender websites for Rodrick as subscription services, not as vehicles to target offenders for cash.

Souhrada said he designed the sex-offender sites from data he scraped from official registries maintained by law-enforcement agencies across the country. He said he reformatted the data into his own templates that Rodrick used for websites such as Offendex.

Oesterblad said the origin of the sex-offender sites goes back to 1999when he and Rodrick owned an Internet-based subscription service to access public records called Spyheadquarters.com. The name was later changed to Onlinedetective.com.

In 2006, the demand for subscriptions to search public records plummeted. Oesterblad said he and Rodrick didn't have another company together until 2011, when Rodrick approached him about a new website called Offendex.com to collect money from sex offenders.

Oesterblad said Rodrick was in the middle of a divorce case and asked him to register the new company with the Arizona Corporation Commission and open bank accounts.

"I did not know then, but believe now, that Rodrick established the name Web Express Ventures in order to hide income and other assets from his estranged wife," Oesterblad wrote in his federal court declaration.

At its peak, the sex-offender websites were bringing in an estimated $35,000 per month, Oesterblad said during last month's interview.

Oesterblad described his role in the website as a contract employee. He said Rodrick paid him 50 percent commission on money he collected from sex offenders through the removal process. He also said his job was to communicate with offenders.

"I'm the one who had to talk to the angry perps on the phone," Oesterblad said, adding that he has no regrets about firing off angry e-mails to offenders and rubbing their faces in the graphic details of their crimes. "I was the zealot."

By the end of 2012, Offendex was getting a lot of negative attention on the Internet and elsewhere. Days after Call 12 for Action sought interviews with Rodrick in December, he changed the name of the site to SORArchives.

Oesterblad said the real blow for the company came after complaints from around the country about similar websites led credit-card and payment-processing companies to reject payments on behalf of the websites. Google also changed its formulas so the sites were buried on the Web.

"Rodrick subsequently learned that he and the SORArchives.com website was under investigation for possible criminal activities," Oesterblad said in his declaration.

Oesterblad said that Rodrick told him he learned Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's office had opened a criminal investigation into the websites.

No criminal charges have been filed.

Oesterblad said he decided to testify in the civil cases after he and Rodrick had a dispute over $808. Oesterblad said Rodrick refused to pay him for work he did on the websites and then pushed him out of a future project.

He said he felt betrayed and as if he had wasted two years of his life.

"I agreed to talk to everybody. I agreed to tell the truth," Oesterblad said in the interview. "I can acknowledge my naivete and stupidity for being a patsy."

In fall 2012, Call 12 for Action received a complaint call from a consumer alleging that a Valley-based company was engaged in online extortion. Reporter Robert Anglen set out to investigate those claims and found that sex-offender websites were demanding money to remove profiles from the Web. To trace the operators of those websites, Anglen combed through hundreds of pages of court records, business filings and property records.