7-25-17 Arizona:
Arizona inmates claim the Department of Corrections has reneged on promises to fix its health code—and retaliated against those who reported the problem.
Arizona inmates went to court to describe their poor medical treatment: hours spent waiting for nurses outdoors in dangerous heat; cells so hot, inmates could barely breathe. Within days of their testimony, half of those inmates reported retaliation by corrections officers.
On July 14, four inmates went to court with allegations that could cost the Arizona Department of Corrections more than $2 million in penalties. The state prison system was flouting its basic rules for medical care, the inmates testified, putting people with health conditions at serious risk. But when they returned from court, the inmates found themselves in an even more dangerous prison environment, their lawyers claim in a new court filing.
The case has its roots in a 2012 lawsuit by Arizona inmates who also accused the state of lax medical practices, which they claimed resulted in unnecessary death and injury within the prison system. The case, which ballooned into a class action on behalf of 33,000 Arizona inmates, was eventually settled in 2014, with the Department of Corrections agreeing to strict new health standards. ..Continued..
Showing posts with label .Arizona. Show all posts
Showing posts with label .Arizona. Show all posts
July 25, 2017
Lawsuit: Prison Guards Retaliated Against Inmates Denied Health Care
June 6, 2017
A law that turned loving parents into child molester’s ruled unconstitutional by federal judge
Arizona – Flipping the burden of proof from the state to the defendant in criminal prosecutions is the crux of this illegitimate law. In a report by Slate, “Last September, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a stunning decision interpreting the state’s child molestation law to criminalize any contact between an adult and a child’s genitals. In a 3–2 ruling, the court found that the law encompassed entirely innocent conduct, such as changing or bathing a baby. Arizona, the court held, could convict an adult for touching an infant’s genitals—which carries a prison sentence of five years—without proving sexual intent. Instead, under the law, the accused had the burden of proving that (they) had no sexual intent to a jury and by a preponderance of the evidence. As the dissenters noted, the ruling turned ‘parents and other caregivers’ in the state into ‘child molesters or sex abusers under Arizona law.'”
Fortunately for adults who were unjustly branded “molesters” for simply changing diapers or similar, a federal court recently intervened and ruled the Arizona law unconstitutional. In a lengthy ruling, U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake explained how the law violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Under current Arizona law, a person is guilty of molestation if they, “intentionally or knowingly … touch[es] … any part of the genitals, anus or female breast” of a child “under fifteen years of age.”
The glaring problem is the law doesn’t state touching must be for sexual gratification – basically labeling anyone who changes a diaper as… you got it – a child molester. Furthermore, it switches the burden of proof to the defendant – requiring they prove the touching was not sexual in nature.
Judge Wake’s ruling overturned the criminal conviction of Stephen May, a swimming instructor who was found guilty of inappropriately touching four children. A jury found May guilty of touching the children, but not sexually, since the law didn’t require that finding. May was sentenced to 75 years in prison. May isn’t the only Arizonan to unjustly suffer under the law; Judge Wake noted the state has prosecuted plenty of parents, and successfully convicted some, for what may be totally innocent behavior. Those persons will likely ask a federal court to vacate their sentence. ..Continued..
May 20, 2017
Arizona prison officials cannot read inmates' legal mail: appeals court
A federal appeals court on Thursday declared unconstitutional Arizona's policy of letting state prison officials read inmates' outgoing mail to their lawyers.
Reversing a lower court ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Arizona's authorization of a page-by-page review of death row inmate Scott Nordstrom's legal mail violated his Sixth Amendment right to correspond confidentially with his lawyer, and his First Amendment right to free speech.
The office of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, which represented the Arizona Department of Corrections, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Nordstrom did not immediately respond to similar requests.
Nordstrom sued after a prison officer allegedly rebuffed his request to stop reading a letter addressed to his lawyer. The official allegedly said he was authorized to scan the content and told Nordstrom, "Don't tell me how to do my job."
Writing for a 3-0 appeals court panel, Circuit Judge Milan Smith said Arizona had a legitimate interest in prison security, and that prison officials could inspect outgoing mail for "suspicious features" such as escape maps or contraband.
But he said it was "unduly intrusive" for officials to read outgoing legal mail addressed to licensed lawyers, because there was no evidence of a threat.
"The ends do not justify the means," Smith wrote. "Confidential legal correspondence, free from unreasonable censorship and the chilling effect of excessive monitoring, remains an important avenue of communication for inmates."
The appeals court returned Nordstrom's case to U.S. District Judge David Campbell in Phoenix "to craft a decree based on the evidence of actual risks in Arizona state prisons."
The case is Nordstrom v Ryan et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 16-15277. ..Source..
April 5, 2017
Child molester released after analysis of law
See also Federal judge rules molestation statute 'grievous threat to due process of law' and U.S. judge knocks down Arizona's child-molestation law, orders ex-teacher released and Federal Judge Rules Arizona’s Diaper Changing Child Molestation Law Is Unconstitutional See Court Decision: May v. Ryan4-5-17 Arizona:
PHOENIX — Calling the statute a “grievous threat to due process of law,” a federal judge has released a convicted child molester after ruling the law imposes unconstitutional burdens on defendants to prove their innocence.
In an extensive analysis of the issue, Judge Neil Wake said someone can be convicted of molesting for the “intentional and knowing” touching of the private parts of a child. But the law says a defendant can seek to escape conviction by proving that touching “was not motivated by a sexual interest.”
But Wake said that turns the law on its head.
He said it is the legal obligation of prosecutors to prove all elements of a crime. And that, said Wake, means it's up to the prosecutor to prove that the person touched the child with a sexual intent, not for the person, already arrested, to prove otherwise.
Wake said the Arizona law instead criminalizes “wide swaths of conduct with no element of the crime to differentiate between culpable, innocent and constitutionally protected conduct.”
“By prohibiting 'touching, fondling or manipulating' of a child's private areas, Arizona's child molestation law criminalizes sexual fondling of children, sitting a child down in a chair, diapering and bathing an infant, medical treatment and religious circumcision alike,” the judge wrote.
The ruling is at odds with what the Arizona Supreme Court decided last year when it rejected a similar challenge to the law. In that case, which the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to review, the Arizona justices said prosecutors are “unlikely to charge parents, physicians and the like” when the evidence shows that the touching was not done with a sexual intent.
Wake said that clearly isn't the case, citing other cases, including one from Pima County, where a father was brought up on charges bathing his child, only having to defend himself in court.
“Just trusting the government to do the right thing is poor dressing for constitutional wounds,” Wake wrote.
The ruling resulted in the immediate release last week of Stephen E. May, convicted in 2007 on five counts of child molesting. He was sentenced to consecutive 15-year terms for each for incidents in Mesa that the attorney general's office, which sought to uphold the convictions, said involved touching two girls and a boy through clothing or bathing suits.
But this may not be the last word. The attorney general's office is asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn what Wake did and send May back to prison.
The decision also drew an angry reaction from Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery whose agency prosecuted May in the first place. He said Wake's ruling shows an “outright disrespect” for last year's Arizona Supreme Court ruling, the ruling the U.S. Supreme Court left intact.
Wake, however, said that was “the first time anywhere in the country” that a court had concluded that people charged with molesting have the burden of proving they had no sexual intent. And he specifically criticized the state's high court for concluding that there's nothing wrong with shifting the burden.
“The state Supreme Court implies that any law may intentionally and expansively sweep innocent conduct within its prohibition by omitting traditional and common sense elements of the offense — leaving it to the selected defendants to prove their innocence,” Wake wrote.
“There is a grievous threat to due process of law from making defendants disprove their own state of mind for conduct that is not wrongful in any sensible way without a bad mental state,” the judge said.
Wake also rebuffed claims by attorneys for the state that lawmakers have complete and unfettered authority to decide both the elements of a crime and what are affirmative defenses that someone charged can raise.
“The state's stance is antithetical to the very requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” the judge wrote. “Deference to the legislature's discretion ends when it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people to be ranked as fundamental.” ..Source.. by HOWARD FISCHER
March 17, 2017
Mesa couple loses appeal in sex offender database case
Mesa’s Donna and Jeff Zink have lost their appeal of a case related to Donna Zink’s pursuit of Level 1 sex offender data from Benton County.
In an opinion filed Thursday, the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a case the Zinks’ filed against Benton County in 2015.
The Franklin County couple sued in Benton County Superior Court after it sent copies of Zink’s request, including her name and contact information, to various sex offenders whose information she was requesting.
The suit alleged various civil rights violations, violations of the Public Records Act, harassment, infliction of emotional distress and damage to their marriage.
The county moved for a dismissal and won when the Zinks failed to appear at a hearing in December 2015 or to answer the county’s motion.
The Zinks appealed, saying they weren’t properly notified of the hearing or the identity of the judge assigned to the case.
The appeals court disagreed, saying they had “ample notice” and that the judge’s identity made no difference. It denied the Zinks’ request for attorney fees and costs.
The case has no bearing on Donna Zink’s earlier successful request for information related to Level 1 sex offenders, whose names were not previously included in public databases.
She prevailed in Washington State’s Supreme Court and has since received, and posted, the 2013 list on her Google Plus page.
The Zinks are active litigants with numerous cases related to public records request disputes and claim violations of the state’s Public Meetings Act pending in courts throughout Washington. ..Source.. by Wendy Culverwell
September 16, 2016
If You Change a Baby’s Diaper in Arizona, You Can Now Be Convicted of Child Molestation
UPDATE 9-20-16: Public Misled on Claims Diaper Changing is Worthy of Felony Prosecution in Arizona UPDATE 9-22-16: Arizona Prosecutor Promises Not to Persecute Innocent Parents Like His Predecessor Did9-16-2016 Arizona:
The Arizona Supreme Court issued a stunning and horrifying decision on Tuesday, interpreting a state law to criminalize any contact between an adult and a child’s genitals. According to the court, the law’s sweep encompasses wholly innocent conduct, such as changing a diaper or bathing a baby. As the stinging dissent notes, “parents and other caregivers” in the state are now considered to be “child molesters or sex abusers under Arizona law.” Those convicted under the statute may be imprisoned for five years.
How did this happen? A combination of bad legislating and terrible judging. Start with the legislature, which passed laws forbidding any person from “intentionally or knowingly … touching … any part of the genitals, anus or female breast” of a child “under fifteen years of age.” Notice something odd about that? Although the laws call such contact “child molestation” or “sexual abuse,” the statutes themselves do not require the “touching” to be sexual in nature. (No other state’s law excludes this element of improper sexual intent.) Indeed, read literally, the statutes would seem to prohibit parents from changing their child’s diaper. And the measures forbid both “direct and indirect touching,” meaning parents cannot even bathe their child without becoming sexual abusers under the law. ..Continued.. by Mark Joseph Stern
September 10, 2016
AZ Supreme Court asked to reinstate no-bail law for some sex offenses
PHOENIX — Prosecutors are asking the Arizona Supreme Court to reinstate a law that allows some people accused of sexual abuse of minors to be held without bail.
Deputy Maricopa County Attorney David Cole said the constitutional provision limiting access to bail was adopted by voters in 2002. He said the state Court of Appeals, in overturning the law enacted by lawmakers to implement that amendment, failed to give "due consideration to the overwhelming will of the people.''
"It has long been the law in Arizona that legislative enactments enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality, and that the burden to overcome the presumption rests squarely on the shoulders of the challenger,'' Cole said in legal papers filed with the state's high court. And he said the attorneys for the two men at issue have failed to meet that burden.
"The people of Arizona determined that sexual conduct with a minor is an acute problem and that pretrial detention for those accused of that crime was in the best interest of the community,'' Cole wrote.
State Solicitor General John Lopez IV, interceding in the legal dispute on behalf of Attorney General Mark Brnovich, Senate President Andy Tobin and House Speaker David Gowan, went even further.
He said Arizona has "a transcendent interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation.'' And Lopez said that outweighs the "liberty interest'' of someone who has only been charged with a crime.
The case involves two men charged in separate unrelated incidents of various charges, including sexual conduct with minors younger than 15.
Both were initially held without bail based on the 2002 measure that says people charged with those crimes are not entitled to pretrial release "if the proof is evidence or the presumption great that the person is guilty of the offense charged.''
But in June the state Court of Appeals said even those protections are legally insufficient. Appellate Judge Peter Swann said bail can be denied only if prosecutors can also show that no bail conditions or restrictions would ensure the protection of others.
He cited a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said the categorical denial of bail is unconstitutional. Swann said that means trial judges must make case-by-case determinations of whether a person can be released — and under what conditions — while awaiting trial. ..Continued.. by AZ News
September 5, 2016
Court: Homeless sex offenders still face 72-hour reporting despite 2006 rule change
PHOENIX - A court ruling says an Arizona law intended to make it practical for homeless people to register as sex offenders only goes so far.
The Court of Appeals ( State v Burbey ) says a 2006 change to the state's sex-offender registration law requires homeless people to report their transient status at least every 90 days.
A man convicted of failing to report a residence change within 72 hours contended he didn't break the law because he was homeless and only had to comply with the 90-day reporting requirement.
72 hours is the time most sex offenders have to report a residence change. The 90 day ruling was originally intended to give homeless people more time in order to report a move.
However, the Court of Appeals says the man still violated the law by failing to notify authorities within 72 hours after leaving a halfway house.
The court says the law is intended to protect communities by tracking sex offenders' whereabouts as closely as reasonable practicable. ..Source.. by
September 3, 2016
Court rejects Cochise County man’s challenge of sex-offender registry
See also: Appeals court: Sex offender registration laws are valid Here is an excellent explanation: Probation for Sex With Another Teenager, 3.5 Years in Prison for Failing to Register9-3-16 Arizona, 9th Circuit:
WASHINGTON – A federal court Friday upheld a Cochise County man’s conviction for failing to register as a sex offender, even though the state’s the sex-offender registry law was passed the year after his sexual misconduct conviction.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected David Bernard Clark’s argument that applying a law that passed after his crime was an improper ex post facto application.
Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber wrote that the sex-offender registry law was intended not as a punitive measure aimed at offenders, but a protective measure for the community, which means it could be applied.
Clark’s attorney, Sandra Slaton, did not comment on the opinion except to say that they were reviewing it Friday and would decide whether to ask for a review by the full 9th Circuit, or take their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Clark was 18 in 1982 when he pleaded guilty to having sex with a 14-year-old, a Class 2 felony. He was sentenced to, and completed, four years probation on the charge.
In 1983, as he was on probation, Arizona enacted a sex-offender registration statute, which required anyone convicted of a sex offense to record their address in a statewide registry.
Clark was arrested in December 2009 after moving to Cochise County, and charged with failing to register as a sex offender in compliance with the 1983 law. He pleaded guilty in 2010 to a single charge of failing to register- a Class 4 felony – and was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison.
Clark went to court to challenge his conviction, calling it an unconstitutional ex post facto application. He also argued that the conviction violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy and violated an Arizona statute that required a defendant to be “punished under the law in effect at the time his or her offense was committed.”
But he was repeatedly rejected by state courts, and the Arizona Supreme Court declined to hear his case.
That sparked a challenge in federal court, where a district court judge said the state courts had acted properly in their rulings. Clark lost another round Friday when the circuit court upheld the district court’s decision.
Clark had argued that the law goes beyond “mere dissemination of factual information” and veers toward public shaming. The state’s online registry “will likely facilitate harassment of registrants, as evidenced by the recent adoption of cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment laws in Arizona.”
But Graber was not swayed, writing that, “Considering all the relevant factors, taken together, that Arizona Court of Appeals was not unreasonable in holding that the statute’s punitive efforts failed to outweigh its regulatory purposes.” ..Source.. by Jessica Suerth
April 7, 2015
Attorneys for 19-year-old want social media they say show girls lied about sexual assault
PHOENIX — Attorneys for a 19-year-old accused of sexually assaulting several girls at his former high school say there is a "treasure trove" of evidence proving the girls lied about the abuse, but the lawyers want further access to Facebook accounts to prove it.
Tyler Kost, who appeared in court on Monday, was arrested last May for sexual crimes against 13 girls between 13 and 17 years old, most of whom were former classmates at Poston Butte High School. The Pinal County Attorney's Office says Kost faces 30 charges in three indictments ranging from sexual abuse to child molestation.
Kost stared straight ahead throughout most of the proceedings, his expression waffling between consternation and sedation. He looked older than in his booking photo with pale skin and close cropped brown hair.
Kost's defense said new evidence taken from Facebook and Instagram proves the women lied about sexual abuse.
The prosecution handed over 98,000 pages of social media records from several of the alleged victims, but Defense Attorney Michael Alarid said he needs the communications of at least 8 other people to determine how far the plot spreads.
The court documents reveal a group Facebook chat where three of the accusers and three witnesses made plans to "teach a lesson" to Kost and referred to the movie "John Tucker Must Die," where ex-girlfriends take revenge on a former boyfriend. The exchange happened weeks before the women accused Kost of sexual assault."
Facebook's privacy policy prevents the defense from gaining access to the other records, Alarid said. Only law enforcement can request the information from Facebook, he said.
"Quite frankly the fact that the state is refusing to get any additional social media records is concerning. It's shocking. Based on what we've uncovered so far they should be dismissing several charges. Instead they are digging their heels in and they are refusing to give us anything additional," Alarid said.
Prosecutor Shawn Jensvold said the records are not in the state's control and can't be turned over to the defense. Further, he said, the defense has not demonstrated a substantial need for the information.
Jensvold said that the Facebook conversation only shows that three of the victims might be involved in a revenge plot, but not the other 10 victims.
"It's not the state's job to go on a fishing expedition for the defense, which is very clear within the case law," he said.
Kost was arrested after the Pinal County Sherriff's Office received a tip accusing him of sexual assault against five victims. He was booked on two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor. Detectives later identified eight other girls who said they were sexually abused by Kost.
A spokesman for the sheriff's office said that in at least one case Kost threatened, harassed and told a victim to kill herself. In another, a victim said she became pregnant when she was raped after a Poston Butte homecoming dance.
Judge Kevin White set the next hearing for May 4 at the Pinal County Superior Court. ..Source.. by RYAN VAN VELZER
December 30, 2014
Appeals court upholds conviction, 110-year sentence in porn case
Given this man's age the sentence is ridiculous, not based on reasoning, instead some form of revenge.12-30-2014 Arizona:
ORAN | The U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction and sentence of an Oran resident sent to prison for 110 years for filming children engaged in sexual activity in 2012.
Benton Stong, 77, argued the four boys listed as the victims engaged in “exploration and play” and no evidence existed that he persuaded them. In a ruling handed down Dec. 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District disagreed.
“Considering that pornography of the four boys had been created in his apartment, stored on computers and a camera there and even contained his voice, a reasonable jury could conclude that Stong photographed and filmed the four boys engaging in sexually explicit conduct in order to create child pornography,” the justices wrote in their decision.
The court also turned down Stong’s argument for a lenient sentence because of his age and ill health.
Authorities said Stong photographed and filmed boys 10 to 12 years old when they visited his apartment. Stong had prior convictions in 1961 and 1984, but he was not required to register as a sex offender at the time because the crime occurred before the registry was established in 1995.
Stong is serving his sentence at the U.S. Penitentiary in Tucson, Ariz. ..Source.. by Jeff Reinitz
November 28, 2014
Arizona law against 'revenge porn' put on hold to let lawmakers address 1st Amendment issues
A federal judge on Wednesday put a new Arizona law against "revenge porn" on hold after civil rights groups sued over constitutional grounds.
The order from U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton came as part of an agreement between the Arizona attorney general's office and the groups that sued. The order blocks enforcement of the law to allow the Legislature time to work on changes.
Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, crafted the bill to bar "revenge porn" from being posted online by jilted lovers.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued in September, saying the law is so broadly written it makes anyone distributing or displaying a nude image without explicit permission guilty of a felony. The group said that violates the 1st Amendment.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix on behalf of several bookstores and publishing associations, the owner of the Village Voice and 12 other alternative newsweeklies nationwide, and the National Press Photographers Association.
Gov. Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2515 into law in April after it unanimously passed the Senate and House. Mesnard said Wednesday he'll work on changes but isn't sure they'll satisfy the ACLU.
"Given my willingness to do that, it made sense to say, well let's see if we can get an agreement to hold off on the bill for now and make some changes in the next session," Mesnard said. "We may end up right back where we are now because some of the issues the ACLU brought up, I don't think they'll ever be satisfied."
David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition, whose members include publishers, librarians and booksellers, said the current law would have a chilling effect on free speech.
"The range of material that this law could bring in was hugely overbroad, it went far beyond anything you would think of as sort of malicious invasion of privacy." Horowitz said.
The court order put the ACLU's request for a preliminary injunction on hold until the Legislature passes and the governor signs a new version of the bill, or until the Legislature adjourns in late spring.
If no new version is passed, Horowitz said the groups objecting to the law will move to get it blocked permanently. ..Source.. by Bob Christie
August 21, 2014
MCSO IDs man found dead in Peoria canal
8-21-2014 Arizona:
Sheriff's investigators identify murder victim as 35-year-old Peoria man
The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has identified a 35-year-old man found dead Wednesday morning in a Peoria canal.
Passers-by discovered the body of Rolland Lee Tockey pressed up against the intake to a water-treatment plant near 67th Avenue and Thunderbird Road, said Lt. Brandon Jones, a Maricopa County Sheriff's Office spokesman.
Tockey was a registered sex offender who served served almost 16 years in prison for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl, according to the Alabama Department of Public Safety.
Tockey lived near the area where his body was found, Jones said Wednesday.
Investigators believe Tockey was murdered, but the official cause of death remains under investigation, he said.
Tockey's body showed evidence of trauma, Jones said Wednesday, but currents in moving water could be the cause. ..Source.. by Matthew Casey
August 11, 2014
Federal judges slam man in sex-offender extortion cases
Judges in two federal cases last week ruled against an Arizona man accused of operating an Internet extortion racket that targets sex offenders across the country.
Judges in Arizona and Michigan awarded default judgments to 11 plaintiffs in six states who filed lawsuits against Charles Rodrick, owner of a network of websites that used law-enforcement data to demand payments from people identified as sex offenders.
The two lawsuits accused Rodrick of violating Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws and conspiring to extort money from people by threatening to publish their names, photographs and other personal information on the sites even if they had never been arrested and were not required to register as sex offenders.
The decisions were the latest blows to Rodrick and his website operation. In May, a Maricopa County jury awarded a $3.4 million verdict to three people Rodrick profiled on his sites. The jury found he defamed them, invaded their privacy, put them in a false light and abused the court system by filing lawsuits against them in retaliation for complaining.
"It was a bit of a bloodbath," said California lawyer Janice Bellucci, who represented 10 plaintiffs in the Arizona federal case. "Rodrick dug himself a hole and then jumped in."
The judgment came after Rodrick told U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton he would not follow her instructions and hung up on her during a conference call, Bellucci said.
Bolton immediately entered judgments on behalf of the plaintiffs, noting in an Aug. 4 order that Rodrick "advises the court he will not abide by the court's ruling."
The next day, a federal judge in Michigan ordered Rodrick to pay $5,270 in attorneys fees and banned Rodrick "from ever posting any similar sex-offender posting concerning plaintiff or otherwise posting defamatory statements concerning plaintiff on the Internet."
Rodrick, 52, of Cave Creek, has refused for more than a year to discuss his websites. He could not be reached for comment last week.
A Call 12 for Action investigation in 2013 found Rodrick's sites scraped sex-offender databases compiled by law-enforcement agencies and used them to create private websites, including Offendex.com, SORArchives.com, Onlinedetective.com, Sexoffenderrecord.com and Sexcrimedata.com.
Operators of the sites did not always take down profiles after payments were made and launched online harassment campaigns against individuals who went to authorities. Operators published complainants' home and e-mail addresses, posted photographs of their relatives and copied their Facebook friends onto sex-offender websites.
Call 12 found the websites listed as sex offenders individuals who no longer were required to register or whose names had been removed from sex-offender databases.
Although laws in most states make it a crime to misuse official sex-offender databases, no law-enforcement agency, including the Arizona Attorney General's Office, has taken criminal action against Rodrick over the websites, records show.
Reaction to judgments
Plaintiffs were jubilant over the federal rulings, saying the decisions will help lay the groundwork to restore their reputations and keep Rodrick from hurting anyone else through his websites.
"Now we work on damages. ... But this was about more than money," Washington resident Adam Galvez said last week. "More than anything we want the sites taken down."
Galvez is the only plaintiff in the federal cases willing to be identified by name. Others sought protection from the courts to keep their identities secret, saying the threat of being publicly labled a sex offender could cost them jobs or damage relationships.
Galvez, 39, pleaded guilty to child molestation in 1996 and served an 18-month prison term. Although he is a registered sex offender, he has not been listed on any public databases for nearly 15 years.
Galvez said he discovered his profile on Offendex.com in 2012. When he refused to pay to have his name removed, operators posted pictures of Galvez's mother and brother on the sex-offender websites along with their addresses. They also put his Facebook friends on the sites.
Galvez launched his own investigation of Rodrick and posted findings on a website called Offendextortion.com. Rodrick sued Galvez and his mother for defamation. Rodrick also sued his ex-wife and her boyfriend, claiming they aided Galvez.
But in a rare reversal, a Maricopa County judge declared Rodrick the defendant in his own lawsuit, setting the stage for the $3.4 million verdict. The jury awarded Galvez's mother $467,000.
Plaintiffs in the federal case are from California, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington. Another Washington man identified as John Doe 4 said he was "elated" by the outcome.
The 37-year-old man, who was convicted of the rape of a child in 2002, is no longer required to register as a sex offender and his profile was removed from public databases in 2012. But that didn't prevent Rodrick's websites from posting his name and picture online last year. The websites also posted the name of the man's wife and a link to their wedding pictures.
John Doe 4 said the purpose was to expose him to shame and ridicule in an effort to squeeze him for cash.
"I actually considered paying him," he said. "This is not a legitimate record. It's not official."
John Doe 4 instead filed reports with local, state and federal authorities.
"We wanted him (Rodrick) reprimanded and we want the sites taken down," he said. "We want to live in peace."
John Doe's wife said Rodrick was "literally banking" on making her ashamed of her husband through abusive e-mails and online posts. She added: "Rodrick was trying to debase and defame the wrong guy."
Case implodes
The federal case in Arizona imploded for Rodrick after he missed two deposition deadlines and then refused to comply with a judge's order to attend one within 10 days, court records show.
Attorney Bellucci said Rodrick told stories to the court about his inability to attend depositions, including claiming that his longtime girlfriend was gravely ill and had been hospitalized. Bellucci said photographs posted on social-media sites showed Rodrick and his girlfriend at a Mexican resort at the time.
Depositions involve sworn testimony from witnesses in criminal and civil cases. They are a critical part of trial preparation and provide lawyers information about what evidence they will need to subpoena as part of the discovery process.
Bellucci said Rodrick was attempting to delay his deposition until after the discovery deadline had expired. She said Judge Bolton also ordered Rodrick to reveal who was aiding him in filing court documents.
Rodrick, who was convicted on fraud-related charges in the 1990s and has a 10th-grade education, does not have a lawyer. For months, he mounted complex legal battles in state and federal courts, filing multiple motions and other documents.
E-mails and computer records showed Rodrick was assisted with documents in the state case by Kelly Bradbury, who works at a Phoenix polygraph school, claims to have a background in paralegal work and listed J.D. after her name in a school catalog, implying she has a law degree. She served eight years in a Colorado prison for theft beginning in 1997, records show.
Rodrick's girlfriend also has extensive legal experience. Traci Heisig, a court reporter and owner of Desert Hills Reporting in Phoenix, joined Rodrick in the defamation suits. She was sanctioned in the state case after a judge found she willfully refused to comply with court orders by repeatedly failing to show up for depositions.
The federal case was first filed in California in 2013 and was later moved to Arizona. Bellucci said Rodrick's conduct in court, his shifting excuses and unwillingness to follow the rules finally led to victory.
"We are thrilled. Absolutely thrilled," Bellucci said of the case, adding she was prepared for trial. "We never got to the merits of the case. It is frustrating."
Rodrick snubs court
There is no indication what, if any, impact the federal court losses will have on Rodrick's continued operation. He has so far failed to comply with court orders to take down posts about specific individuals despite sanctions and contempt charges.
Complaints about Rodrick's websites have been filed with local, state and federal law-enforcement agencies for more than a year, but he has not been charged with a crime.
A spokesman for Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne said last year that no complaints about the websites could be located. Documents obtained by Call 12 for Action show some complaints were routed to the attorney general's criminal division and community outreach and education division.
Rodrick contends he is a victim in the case. He said he has been subject to improper court rulings and has complained that judges in the state case should have been disqualified. He has threatened to appeal the $3.4 million verdict.
In court filings, Rodrick has repeatedly denied owning the websites. A judge, however, found Rodrick controlled the websites, owned the domain names, administered the sites and was the only person capable of adding or removing information from these websites.
He also controlled the company's finances, according to his former business 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.
At their peak, the sex-offender websites were bringing in an estimated $35,000 per month.
Oesterblad said the company faltered after complaints 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.
Galvez said that every day posts aren't taken down, Rodrick owes him more money, based on the contempt charge. Not that he expects to see a dime of it, he said.
"I don't know why he wants to harass people," Galvez said. ..Source.. by Robert Anglen
May 16, 2014
Jury awards $3.4M to victims of sex offender websites
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.
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. ..Source.. by Robert Anglen
May 13, 2014
Navajo Nation man's conviction overturned due to mental disability, interrogation tactics
PHOENIX — A federal appeals court has overturned a Navajo Nation resident's conviction in a sex-crime case, ruling that his confession to law enforcement agents was involuntary and shouldn't have been used during his trial.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that Tymond Preston's severe intellectual impairment and police tactics that included repetitive questioning and threats for the interrogation to continue without end overwhelmed his will and made his statements involuntary.
However, the ruling also said there's enough other evidence to warrant another trial for Preston in the 2009 case.
Preston was sentenced to four years in prison, and the federal Bureau of Prisons web site says he was released April 4. Preston's appellate lawyer, Keith Swisher, did not immediately return a call for comment on what happens next. ..Source.. by The Republic
April 5, 2014
Court hammers operator of Internet intimidation sites
A Valley man accused of running an Internet extortion racket was dealt a blow last month when a judge found he posted information on websites suggesting a decorated combat veteran with no criminal record was a child molester.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper imposed several sanctions against Charles "Chuck" Rodrick, saying evidence showed he controlled websites where operators demanded money from sex offenders and harassed those who complained.
In a seven-page ruling March 26, Cooper found Rodrick controlled the websites, owned the domain names and violated court orders to remove posts involving three people he sued for defamation after they publicly decried the websites, including his ex-wife and her boyfriend and a convicted sex offender from Washington.
"He is the administrator for these websites and, in that capacity, is the only person capable of adding or removing information from these websites," Cooper wrote.
Cooper also sanctioned Rodrick's girlfriend, Traci Heisig, a court reporter and owner of Desert Hills Reporting in Phoenix. In a separate ruling, Cooper said Heisig, who joined Rodrick in defamation lawsuits, willfully refused to comply with court orders by repeatedly failing to show up for depositions.
Rodrick responded last week with a motion seeking to have Cooper removed from the case. He accused her of having a conflict of interest because of her past relationship with lawyers in the case, and he said the judge is biased against people who represent themselves in court.
"Rodrick has initiated an independent query into Judge Cooper's record in matters involving pro per litigants," he wrote. "It is believed the results show an extreme prejudice against him and pro per litigants in general."
For more than a year, Rodrick, 52, of Cave Creek, has denied ownership or control of the websites.
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. Operators of the sites did not always take down profiles after payments were made and launched online harassment campaigns against those who complained.
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.
The websites, including Offendex.com, SORArchives.com and Sexoffenderrecord.com, stopped seeking payments from people in exchange for removing profiles in November after crackdowns on so-called take-down sites by credit-card and Web-based payment-processing companies.
Rodrick, who was convicted on fraud-related charges in the early 1990s, is at the center of several state and two federal lawsuits accusing him of running an online extortion racket. Lawsuits also have been filed against Rodrick's former business associate Brent Oesterblad, who has testified that he set up companies to disguise Rodrick's ownership interest and operated the websites as Rodrick's contract employee.
In May, Cooper ordered everyone involved in the defamation lawsuits to stop posting information on websites about the cases and each other. But Cooper said, in September, Rodrick posted claims suggesting his ex-wife's boyfriend, David Ellis, was a child molester.
Ellis, a retired U.S. Marine Corps major and president of a real-estate holding company in Phoenix, never has been charged with a crime, records show.
Information Rodrick posted about Ellis suggests he "is a child molester; states that he communicates with, aids and abets sex offenders and child molesters; alleges Ellis committed sexual harassment and other misconduct in the workplace; and lists Ellis' employment addresses and professional affiliations," Cooper wrote in her ruling.
Ellis called the allegations scurrilous, malicious and untrue.
Cooper said Rodrick violated two court orders, and she imposed several sanctions against him. She said a jury will be instructed that he posted the information about Ellis and others and that his violation of court orders "may be relevant to the determination of Ellis' damages." She also ordered Rodrick to pay some fees for lawyers and a computer specialist hired by Ellis' legal team.
Cooper sanctioned Rodrick for failing to provide discovery to defendant Adam Galvez, a convicted sex offender in Washington whose name was removed from official sex-offender registries but remained on the sites controlled by Rodrick. Rodrick sued Galvez for defamation after he launched a website accusing Rodrick of extortion.
In her ruling against Heisig, Cooper criticized the court reporter's excuses for failing to show up at scheduled depositions. Heisig told the court she was in danger of losing a client over publicity generated by the case and feared what would happen if she missed an appointment with the client in order to attend her own deposition.
"When the Court denied her request ... she elected not to obey the Court's orders anyway," Cooper wrote.
Cooper ordered Heisig to pay attorney's fees and costs related to the missed deposition and tossed out her claims against defendants in the lawsuits. ..Source.. by Robert Anglen
February 22, 2014
Court rules on sex offender real estate issue
A state appellate court says Arizona law bars lawsuits against home sellers who don't disclose that a sex offender lives next door, but the ruling also says providing a false reason for selling is another story.
The ruling revives a fraud claim against the sellers of a Scottsdale home. The sellers had told the buyers that they were selling because they wanted to be closer to friends. However, their real reason allegedly was the sex offender next door.
A trial judge dismissed the entire suit, and the Court of Appeals' recent rules agreed with dismissing a claim of negligent misrepresentation.
However, the ruling says the buyers' fraud claim can proceed because it's up to a jury to decide whether the buyers relied on the sellers' allegedly false statement. ..Source.. by SFGate.com
October 8, 2013
The Justice Department Prosecuted A 10-Year-Old As A 'Sex Offender'
A federal appeals court is getting ready to hear the case of a boy who was prosecuted for engaging in sex acts with other boys when he was just 10 years old, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Lawyers for the unnamed boy are appealing a court's ruling that found him "delinquent" — the juvenile equivalent of guilty — for having sex with other young boys on an Arizona Army base.
That boy was sentenced to five years of probation, and he's being forced to register as a sex offender. A federal prosecutor told the Journal that the government decided to prosecute the boy because of the "severity of the conduct" involving five boys between the ages of 5 and 7.
The boy's public defender, Keith Hilzendeger, told the Journal he'd never heard of a federal case involving a 10-year-old. "I think this is really overreaching on the part of the government," he said.
Perhaps the worst part of the case involving Hilzendeger's client is his placement on the sex offender registry. In 2007, The New York Times Magazine had a moving story about the stigma and trauma inflicted on young people who were officially registered as "sex offenders."
One boy profiled in that story, Johnnie, had molested his half-sister when he was 11 and she was 4. Four years later, he started the eighth grade at his Delaware middle school and noticed the other kids pointing at him and laughing.
“Hey, aren’t you a sex offender?" one boy asked.
The latest case involving the Arizona Army base being heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit could force the government to justify putting kids on sex offender registries. In the end, the benefit to public safety may not outweigh the harm to the young children on that list, many of whom may be victims of sexual abuse themselves. ..Source.. by Erin Fuchs
September 24, 2013
Sex offender registration rules don't apply on tribal lands.
Tribal members living on tribal land cannot be prosecuted by the state for failing to register as sex offenders, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Monday.
In a unanimous decision, the judges said state registration requirements cannot supersede what is required by federal law. And absent some very specific conditions, the state has no legal authority.
Judge Philip Espinosa, writing for the court, also said it is irrelevant that the defendant was found off the reservation.
Attorney General Tom Horne said he had not had a chance to review the ruling.
Court records show Raymond John was convicted in the late 1980s in federal court of two counts of sexual assault on the reservation.
In 2010 he was arrested by Coconino County sheriff’s deputies outside the reservation and charged with failure to register as a sex offender as required by Arizona law. He pleaded guilty and was placed on probation.
John immediately asked the verdict be set aside, arguing the state had no authority. He said he was a member of the Navajo Nation living on tribal land and had not worked, resided or attended school outside reservation boundaries.
The trial judge refused, leading to the appeal.
Espinosa said under federal law, a sex offender must register. It also requires tribes to implement their own registration system or delegate that authority to other jurisdictions.
Federal law does say a tribe loses its authority if it does not come up with a suitable program. But Espinosa said the power is delegated to someone else only if the U.S. attorney general first determines the tribe has not complied and is likely incapable of doing so in a reasonable time.
That, he said, did not occur here. And that means Arizona cannot impose registration requirements on tribal members living on tribal lands.
The appellate judges also rejected arguments by prosecutors that the state acquired jurisdiction over John “the moment he stepped off the reservation.’’ They said John’s conviction is based entirely on his conduct within Navajo Nation territory, where he lives.
Beyond the issues related specifically to the Navajo Nation, Espinosa said even if tribal members living on the reservation were required by federal law to register with the state, failing to do so would violate only federal law. That still leaves the state powerless to prosecute John in state court under state laws. ..Source.. by Howard Fischer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
