Thursday, August 13, 2015

An Explanation As To What Floating Down The River Means

Chuck Rodrick has made the accusation that I made a threat when I emailed Brent Osterblad and said that he would be floating down the river soon. This is just another great example of how they can turn your words around. Here's the explanation:

4047673872_5b085aece6_zThere is an ancient proverb that goes something like this:
“If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by”
There is a debate as to the origins of this saying, some believe it is an ancient Chinese proverb quoted by Sun Tzu and others think it is a bad interpretation of Confucius. Sean Connery gave credit to the Japanese when he uttered the quote in the 1993 movie Rising Sun, which also brought it into our pop culture.
A very good colleague of mine would often use this phrase and regardless of the source, it has become one of my favorites. You can draw your own interpretation, here is what it means to me:
In most aspects of life we are competing or striving to achieve something. Whether its a job, a promotion, new business, or a world championship there will always be obstacles and challengers along the way. You need to be patient. Don’t let hype and pressure dissuade you from your mission. Don’t engage in the conflict it will only fuel an escalation and distract you. Stay focussed on what you do well long enough, and eventually the obstacles and challengers will fall down around you.
Now all you have to do is make sure you are sitting by the right river…..

The Queen Of Internet Stalking Mary Cummins and The Eerie Similarities To Chuck Rodrick

I found this article that has so many eerie coincidences to what we are all going through with Chuck Rodrick.

I wanted to start with the end quote to get one point across right away, it reads:

 "Unfortunately, the current laws are inadequate to deal with mentally unbalanced deviants like Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates and Cummins Real Estate Appraisals who use the internet to destroy others. Defamation lawsuits may be filed and won but cyber-stalkers can simply hide their assets, ignore the court judgments, and keep on telling malicious lies about their victims on the internet".

And now onto the story of "Mary Cummings" which can be located here: http://www.randyturner.com/randys-cyber-stalker

After you read this story I am sure you will be shocked at the lengths Ms. Cummins has gone to in order to stalk her victims. So many comparisons can be made between Cummins and Rodrick it is amazing. 

More to come...

Monday, August 10, 2015

Facebook Takes Action Against Convicted Felon Chuck Rodrick

To some this is a small victory and to others it is quite the victory. Charles Rodrick's Facebook Page, which was filled with lies threats and hate speech, has officially been Removed by Facebook officials.

We have yet to mention the name of that page as we are trying to avoid giving them any kind of advertisement and we will continue to keep it quiet.

Many have been effected by this Facebook page, and we have been struggling to get it down as quickly as possible. Fortunately it seems that Facebook officials have also realized the seriousness of the situation and have removed the page.

Many threats of bodily harm were posted on the Facebok page and this is where it began to take a very serious turn.

"I believe that this proves that you can't just write anything you want on the internet" said Adam Galvez, when he heard the news that the page had been taken down. "It was getting very serious and people were threatening to come to my home, it was very scary". Galvez has been a victim of Rodricks threats and harassment for over three years now.


Thursday, July 30, 2015

Rodrick Loses Final Attempt To Set Aside Judgement

This is a long read but worth it if you have interest in the case that Rodrick Lost some areas have been Highlighted. You can see that the Judge confirms that Chuck owns and operates the sites he claims he has nothing to do with. Now Chuck will more then likely begin to attack Judge Gerlach, because when anybody disagrees with him he attacks...


Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
07/29/2015 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003800 07/28/2015
Docket Code 019 Form V000A Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
C. Keller
Deputy
CHARLES RODRICK, et al.
BARRY W ROREX
v.
DAVID MICHAEL ELLIS, et al.
DAVID MICHAEL ELLIS

ADAM GALVEZ

SUSAN K GALVEZ

TRACI HEISIG
C/O DESERT HILLS REPORTING
2415 E CAMELBACK RD, STE 700
PHOENIX AZ 85016
JOE M ROMLEY
JOHN PIERRE WEINBERG
235 W RIDGECREST RD
PHOENIX AZ 85086
RULING
A “Motion to Set Aside Judgment” was filed on behalf of counterdefendants Charles Rodrick and Traci Heisig. The motion (at 1) would have the court “set[] aside the judgments and rulings entered by [Judge Katherine Cooper].”
Fairly considered, the motion suffers from no shortage of flaws.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003800 07/28/2015
Docket Code 019 Form V000A Page 2
To begin, the motion is refuted by the case law authority on which it relies. In McElhanon v. Hing (cited by the motion at 7), the trial judge “act[ed] improperly” by engaging in an ex parte conference. 151 Ariz. 403, 409, 728 P.2d 273, 283 (1986). Despite that, our supreme court concluded that the conduct did not “threaten the integrity of the judicial process” and, thus, declined to take any action because no “actual prejudice” had been shown. Id. at 411, 413, 728 P.2d at 281, 283. The court went on to say, in words applicable here, that to do otherwise in such circumstances “would significantly undermine the integrity of the judicial system.” 151 Ariz. at 413, 728 P.2d at 283; see also Taylor-Bertling v. Foley, 233 Ariz. 394, 398, ¶¶11-13, 313 P.3d 537, 541 (App. 2013) (affirming denial of new trial motion after concluding that the questioned conduct did not “create[] the appearance of bias” and no actual prejudice was demonstrated).
The motion fails on both scores. It fails to demonstrate any impropriety on Judge Cooper’s part, and thus, fails to establish anything that would allow a reasonable person to think that the integrity of the judicial process was threatened. And, the motion fails to identify any actual prejudice that redounded to the detriment of either Rodrick or Heisig.1
The motion insists that Judge Cooper’s rulings are afflicted with the appearance of impropriety because, at the same time she presided in this case, she shared a residence with Michael Krause whom, it was later learned, was a registered sex-offender, and his name purportedly appeared on web sites that Rodrick operated, where the identity of a number of sex offenders from around the country could be found. Although there is no dispute about Rodrick operating sex-offender web sites, it appears that nothing in the record, and especially nothing in the record that was introduced while Judge Cooper had responsibility for the case, supports the contention that Krause’s name appeared on any of those sites (and the motion fails to demonstrate otherwise).
More important, the motion identifies nothing from which an objective person might infer that Judge Cooper was aware of Krause’s criminal record or sex-offender status at any relevant time. Indeed, the only citation in the motion to anything that might qualify as evidence establishes that she did not know until mid-January, 2015, eight months after the trial had concluded, when she promptly disqualified herself from further participation in this case. In other words, the motion relies exclusively on what amounts to uncontradicted evidence compelling the conclusion that the
1 This case was initially assigned to Judge Cooper. Because of the frequency with which civil lawsuits are settled after trial dates are set, Judge Cooper, like many of her colleagues, adopted the practice of double-booking trials. Occasionally, a settlement is not forthcoming in either case, creating a scheduling conflict. That is what happened here. The trial in this case was double-booked with the trial in Belmonte v. Ellis (No. CV 2012-004604). That case had resulted in a mistrial, and thus, the need for a new trial, which began on May 5, the same day that the trial in this case began. Between Belmonte and this case, Belmonte was the first-filed case, which together with the mistrial, explains why it remained with Judge Cooper. As a result and consistent with customary practice, Judge Cooper sent this case to the presiding civil judge for reassignment.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003800 07/28/2015
Docket Code 019 Form V000A Page 3
only decision by Judge Cooper in this case that came after she first learned of Krause’s history was her decision to recuse herself. [See Minute Entry (1/20/15)]2
Stated otherwise, the record establishes that this is not a case in which the judge was aware of any facts creating an appearance of impropriety, this is not a case in which the judge once knew of such facts but forgot them, and this is not a case in which the judge had notice of those facts but overlooked them or failed to apprehend their significance. And, the motion identifies no case law, treatise, commentary, or anything else that would recognize an appearance of impropriety in those circumstances.3
Apart from nothing suggesting bias, the motion fails to identify anything resembling actual prejudice. To be sure, the motion does assert (at 7) that Judge Cooper’s rulings “had a significant effect on the trial outcome.” In doing so, however, the motion embraces the odd belief, which repeats throughout the motion, that the mere assertion of an ultimate conclusion is its own proof. Which of Judge Cooper’s rulings and decisions had a “significant effect on the trial outcome?” The motion does not identify even one. More important, neither can the judge who sat through the trial and who, after receipt of the motion, examined, rather than ignored, the record.4
2 The motion (at 6) relies exclusively for its factual support on a news story that appeared on the Internet in mid-January, 2015, in which Judge Cooper is quoted as saying that she had become aware only days earlier that Krause had a criminal record. [See http://www.kpho.com/story/27887165/will-judges-relationship-with-convicted-sex-offender] The motion offers nothing that would warrant even suspicion about the credibility of Judge Cooper’s statement.
3 Apart from McElhanon, between the motion (at 7) and a later filing in aid of the motion [Motion for Clarification (6/23/15) at 2], two court of appeals decisions have been offered to support the contention that an appearance of impropriety should be recognized here: State v. Salazar, 182 Ariz. 604, 898 P.2d 982 (App. 1995), and In re Kay, 213 Ariz. 373, 142 P.3d 249 (App. 2006). Correctly understood, however, neither of those cases assists the inquiry. While Salazar was pending in the trial court, Salazar’s attorney began representing the judge’s former secretary in a wrongful termination case against that same trial judge in another court. 182 Ariz. at 607, 898 P.2d at 985. The court of appeals concluded that “a lawyer’s representation of a party adverse to the judge suggests that the judge might disfavor that lawyer, to the detriment of his client.” Id. at 608, 898 P.2d at 986. In Kay, a lawyer who, at the trial judge’s request, provided assistance by serving frequently as his judge pro tempore, did so at the same time that the trial judge was considering motions submitted by the same lawyer in another case. Id. at 380, 142 P.3d at 256. The court of appeals concluded that, in those circumstances, a reasonable person could infer that the two maintained some sort of professional association, and as well, that the lawyer had “special access” to the judge. Id. at 380, 142 P.3d at 256. Fairly read, neither of those cases suggests that the same result would have been reached had the trial judge not known of the facts that created the appearance of impropriety. Although both judges misapprehended the consequences of those facts, unlike what occurred in this case, they nevertheless were aware of them. The motion to set aside (at 7) also cites State v. Hursey, which is unhelpful because the facts here are not even remotely similar to the facts of that case, which involved the disqualification of a prosecutor who had once represented the defendant he was prosecuting. 176 Ariz. 330, 332, 861 P.2d 615, 617 (1993).
4 Although Judge Cooper did not preside over the trial, before her recusal, she did sign the final judgments in favor of the counterplaintiffs after the trial judge had granted remittitur requests. [Amended Judgments (entered 9/17/14, 9/18/14, and 10/1/14)] Her doing so, however, amounted to no more than a series of ministerial acts. Thus, no
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003800 07/28/2015
Docket Code 019 Form V000A Page 4
Not only does the motion fail to identify any rulings for which Judge Cooper was responsible that affected the outcome, the motion does not so much as identify the rulings that it wants set aside. As a result, the motion is both confused and confusing because it concedes that some of Judge Cooper’s rulings should not be vacated. [See Motion at 4 (acknowledging that some rulings favored Rodrick and other rulings were “fair”)] And, it is not the responsibility of this court to assume the role of back-up counsel by assisting with the development of an otherwise incomplete argument. E.g., Ace Auto Prods., Inc. v. Van Duyne, 156 Ariz. 140, 143, 750 P.2d 898, 901 (App. 1987) (stating that “[i]t is not incumbent upon the court to develop an argument for a party”).5

In any event, just how any ruling pertaining to Heisig is affected by an improper appearance is left unexplained. The motion’s asserted appearance of impropriety is tied to the fact that Rodrick operated sex-offender web sites. Nothing in the record establishes that Heisig participated in the operation of those sites or benefited from them. Thus, there is no connection between Heisig and what supposedly creates the appearance of impropriety. That should end the inquiry about setting aside any ruling pertaining to her.6

sound reason, much less applicable law, warrants setting aside the verdicts and granting a new trial. Otherwise, it is not apparent that the motion has given reasoned thought to this question: If the court were to grant the motion, then what? Surely, the motion does not suffer from the misapprehension that, if it is granted, that is the end of things. Thus, it is worth asking: does Rodrick really want another judge to reconsider whether the violation of two court orders warranted a contempt finding, thereby exposing Rodrick to the risk of new penalties that exceed the sanctions that Judge Cooper imposed? And, does Heisig really want another judge to reconsider whether the monetary sanction imposed by Judge Cooper for failing twice to appear at a properly noticed deposition was appropriate and risk having that judge decide that the amount of the sanction was too small?
5 Further manifesting the motion’s confused and, at times, incoherent state are its unexplained and unnecessary references to rulings for which Judge Cooper was not responsible (after all, the relief that the motion requests is confined only to what Judge Cooper did). In any event, in at least one sense, the motion’s failure to identify the rulings it wishes to have set aside is beside the point. That is because the motion is unaccompanied by any citations to the record that would support setting aside any ruling. And, when post-trial challenges to rulings are submitted to the trial court without accompanying citations to the record, they fail. See Ullman v. Starbucks Corp., 152 F.Supp.2d 322, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (rejecting motion regarding trial judge’s impartiality that included no citation to the record); see also Hauf v. I.R.S., 968 F. Supp. 78, 82 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (concluding that failure to provide “specific citations” to the record warranted rejection of arguments urged in aid of new trial motion); Ayala v. Rosales, No. 13 C 4425, 2015 WL 4127915, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (stating that “any arguments lacking necessary record support are, in the first instance, denied as waived”).
6 Perhaps to its credit, the motion avoids the unavailing, if not mindless, guilt-by-association argument. In any event, no ruling in the case adverse to Heisig can be reasonably and responsibly attributed merely to her relationship with Rodrick (and the motion fails to identify any such ruling).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003800 07/28/2015
Docket Code 019 Form V000A Page 5
In addition, the motion is, in many ways, afflicted with a profound lack of familiarity about what transpired in this case, so much so that any pretense of credibility the motion might otherwise deserve effectively disappears. For example:

The motion insists (at 2, 6) that Rodrick was subjected to “harsh” and “severe” sanctions that prevented him from pursuing claims he had asserted against the counter plaintiffs. Leaving aside that Judge Cooper had nothing to do with those purported sanctions, it is beyond fair dispute that Rodrick was never sanctioned after the case was reassigned. Instead, consistent with well-settled law, Rodrick’s claims were dismissed because he failed to preserve them in the joint pretrial statement (as to which he was given two opportunities [see Minute Entries (4/18/14 and 5/6/14); see also Minute Entry (4/4/14)]). As a matter of law, a joint pretrial statement operates to amend the pleadings [Murcott v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 198 Ariz. 349, 358, ¶47, 9 P.3d 1088, 1097 (App. 2000)], and thus, issues not identified in the pretrial statement are removed from the case [e.g., Carlton v. Emhardt, 138 Ariz. 353, 355, 674 P.2d 907, 909 (App. 1983)]. That is what happened here.

● The motion maintains (at 6) that the counterplaintiffs “received virtually no sanctions at all for their [failures to preserve claims in the joint pretrial statement].” Really? Surely Heisig would disagree because when the court also dismissed almost all of the claims asserted against her as the result of the counterplaintiffs’ failure to preserve them in the joint pretrial statement, her complete dismissal from the case on a Rule 50 motion was all but a foregone conclusion. And then, there were the 15 claims asserted against Rodrick (three or more by each of the counterplaintiffs) that the court dismissed because they, too, were not preserved in the joint pretrial statement. [Minute Entry (5/6/14)] Fifteen dismissals amount to “virtually no[thing]?”7
● The motion asserts (at 4) that Judge Cooper made “[o]ffhand derogatory comments . . . at hearings [that were] directed at Mr. Rodrick and Ms.
7 The motion insists (at 4) that the counterplaintiffs’ purported “refus[al]” to put on any evidence in support of their claims against Heisig confirmed that those claims were an ill-willed retaliation against her because of her relationship with Rodrick. To the contrary, even before the first word of the first opening statement was uttered, that evidence had become substantially irrelevant because, by then, the court had, except in an inconsequential way, dismissed those claims. Although it in no way explains any of the trial judge’s rulings, as things worked out, Rodrick wound up benefiting because Heisig was not formally dismissed from the case until the counterplaintiffs rested. That meant that, throughout a significant part of the trial, he had what amounted to the assistance of Heisig’s attorney, who, among other things, participated in the cross-examination of the witnesses that the counterplaintiffs called to testify in their case in chief.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003800 07/28/2015
Docket Code 019 Form V000A Page 6
Heisig.” This issue was dealt with by, not Judge Cooper, but the presiding judge of the civil division, John Rea, who found the assertion baseless. [Minute Entry (4/7/14)] And, the motion neither identifies any reason for questioning Judge Rea’s integrity nor cites to anything that warrants questioning his ruling.
● The motion resurrects (at 4) the accusation that Judge Cooper supposedly engaged in ex parte communications with counterplaintiffs’ attorneys. Here again, Judge Rea, and not Judge Cooper, considered the issue and concluded that it was unfounded. [Minute Entry (4/23/14); see also Minute Entry (4/7/14)] The motion identifies nothing that compels a different result.
● The motion suggests (at 5), at least implicitly, that there was something suspicious about the reassignment of the case, stating, “These things do not happen frequently, . . . especially on the eve of a lengthy and long-scheduled trial.” “On the eve?” The case was reassigned on April 7; the trial began, as scheduled, on May 5. And, if the motion is not an attempt to create suspicion about the timing of the reassignment, then why mention it? Otherwise, the motion’s unsupported concern about the reassignment amounts to the exaltation of imagination over reality. [See note 1, above]
● The motion contends (at 6) that Rodrick was supposedly up against “four . . . experienced attorneys.” To the contrary, the counterplaintiffs were represented by an attorney who, like Rodrick, was trying the first case of his career, another who had not been in front of a jury in more than a decade, and a third who was more experienced than that. There was no fourth.8

● The motion insists (at 6) that, “[p]redictably,” the verdict against Rodrick was attributable only to his inability to pursue the claims that he omitted from the joint pretrial statement. Consistent with the approach taken repeatedly throughout the motion, this contention is unsupported by anything that amounts to support, much less record support. Beyond that, any objective observer who sat through the trial would agree that the outcome was the result of the jury finding Rodrick’s presentation unappealing, finding Rodrick unsympathetic, and finding both unconvincing. After all, the jury returned unanimous punitive damages verdicts against him even though a clear and convincing standard of proof applied.9

8 All things considered, this is not an issue of any significance, except that it is yet another example of the motion’s abject disregard for the record in this case.
9 If anything, the verdicts against Rodrick had more to do with his failure to raise objections that were appropriate – objections that the court would have sustained – than they had to do with the omission of his claims from the joint
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-003800 07/28/2015
Docket Code 019 Form V000A Page 7
The motion goes on to report (at 7) that “Arizona courts go to great lengths to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.” As explained above, one way courts do that is by denying motions that, as here, neither demonstrate any impropriety nor identify any actual prejudice. McElhanon, 151 Ariz. at 413, 728 P.2d at 283. Another way is to impose sanctions when a motion fails to meet the standard established by Ariz. R. Civ. P. 11. Here, the motion offers unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion, unconstrained by the record and compounded by the absence of any supporting law. If such a motion does not race past Rule 11’s boundary, it certainly crashes into it. See e.g., Ullman v. Starbucks Corp., 152 F.Supp.2d 322, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (expressing “serious[] concern” that “counsel would bring before the [c]ourt a motion that includes . . . no citation to the record”).
In short, the motion distills to a simple, and simple minded, premise: Despite the absence of any evidence of improper conduct, and even though Judge Cooper’s rulings are unassailable on the merits, nevertheless, those rulings must be set aside because of a recently discovered fact that had no effect on any of them. Surely, to state the motion’s premise is to reject it.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside Judgment is denied.
2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification is moot and requires no court action.
3. No other matters are pending in this case. This is a final, appealable order. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c).
Date: July 28, 2015
/ s / HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
pretrial statement for which he was responsible. That said, however, an objective evaluation of what occurred during the trial establishes beyond fair dispute that, even if Rodrick had objected each of the times that the court was prepared to rule in his favor, the probability of a different result remains infinitesimal.


Sunday, July 26, 2015

Chuck Rodrick's Former Attorney Dan Warner Appears to Have Turned On Rodrick


Extortion Racket Websites: Mugshot & Sex Offender Sites
Originally Posted: Thursday, June 11th, 2015 | Last Updated: Thursday, June 11th, 2015

Online extortion rackets can deeply damage your reputation. We can help get your information removed from certain sites.
“Can I get my name removed from the Web? What if my information wrongly ends up on a sex offender website? Can I get my picture removed from a mug shot website?”
Answer: Yes, you can – under certain circumstances.

Two Men, One Extortion Racket Website?

Charles “chuckRodrick and Brent Oesterblad had each fiddled in fraud. Cable de-scrambling, Alaskan Ponzi schemes, frequent flier scams – that kind of thing. By the noughties, they’d found each other, and subsequently started an online records subscription service. But the Internet is fueled on free information, and by 2006, subscription record services had gone the way of the print Yellow Pages.

But the relationship didn’t end with the tanked online venture. Several years later, Rodrick and Oesterblad once again found each other and started another enterprise. Or, at least according to Oesterblad that’s what happened.

The site was called offendex.com – with an accompanying microsite, sexoffenderrecord.com – and the operators’ stated goal was to save the world from sex offenders – of course. The real impetus? Offendex had very little to do with good citizenry and everything to do with greed. Because according to one of the operators, the site was nothing more than a shame and pay scheme. People who refused to pay to get their info removed said they had to deal with harassing calls, aggressive emails, lawsuits threats, doxxing incidents and various social media headaches. Some Offendex targets reported paying only to have their information remain published.
At its peak, the online racket was raking in about $30,000 a month.
You’re thinking: “Who cares if sex offenders are being extorted! They’re sex offenders!” And you have a point. But here’s the rub: the data used to populate the website wasn’t accurate. In fact, people who’d never been arrested or charged with any sexual deviancy or crime were showing up on the site. Innocent people.

Word got out; authorities got involved; Rodrick and Oesterblad had to wrestle with a new set of legal problems. But the two men were on the outs over an $800-ish unpaid invoice – and Oesterblad was more than willing to sing dirges of online fraud about his former friend.
Upon arrest, Rodrick double-dog swore that he had nothing to do with Offendex or any sex offender site. But Brent Oesterblad is now confessing to police that he helped his buddy, Rodrick, evade traceable ownership interest in the sex offender sites by using foreign banks, overseas domain registrars and proxy servers.
But Rodrick is not backing down. Instead, he decided to file a rash of defamation lawsuits against anybody who said he was involved in the sextortion sites.
OK, so, maybe you’re thinking: “Well, if Rodrick’s name wasn’t associated with the website or business paperwork, then how can he be linked to the extortion websites? It’s just hearsay!”
Except that a financial forensic specialist followed the money, which led to…..you got it: Rodrick.

The Courts Follow The Money In Website Extortion Cases

Not having your name “officially” associated with a company isn’t a legal invisibility cloak; the absence of your name on documents doesn’t necessarily mean you’re free of liability. Why? Because prosecutors follow the money. And if all pecuniary paths point back to you and yours, there’s a good chance the lack of formal paperwork won’t save you. Especially in a case like this where one of the ne’er do wells is talking.

Juan Lorenzana, a computer forensic specialist who testified at the hearings, explained:
“Whoever is receiving money would have control over the websites. Revenue is flowing to him through the websites.”

At points during proceedings, credit-card receipts, bank account data and checks were entered into evidence.

The Court TV “WTFLOL” Twist: Felon Lawyer / Polygraph Expert / PR Anti-Specialist

(*And now for the “Jerry Springer” potion of our website extortion tale.*)
For reasons that can only be speculated about, Rodrick didn’t hire a lawyer. Instead, he enlisted the help of Kelley Bradbury, who deserves a lifetime achievement award in being ballsy. Why? Because according to reports:
  • She served eight years in a Colorado prison for thieving and now works at a lie detector school.
  • After taking a handful of paralegal courses, she added the honorific, J.D. to her signature. But she did earn a certificate in “airline operations.” Which, who knows, maybe she’s qualified to run Delta.
Bradbury helped Rodrick prepare for court. She’s also left pro-Rodrick messages around the Web, but was forced to remove them.

Extortion Sites Won’t Be Making Money In the Near Future; Internet Shakedown Industry Will Soon Be A Thing of The Past

The Internet will eventually shutter extortion websites, organically. Mastercard, Visa, Discover and PayPal have already stopped taking transactions from racket sites. Plus, Google has tweaked its algorithm so those types of sites don’t show in the results.
At this point, the case is a civil one. Maricopa County Attorney, Bill Montgomery, conducted an investigation, but opted not to file criminal charges. So, if Rodrick loses, he won’t have to do prison time, but he will probably have to pay a hefty fine.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


It appears as though Dan Warner has decided to come out with the truth about his former client Chuck  Rodrick. I find this all very interesting and would like to here some of your opinions on this.

I have seen that we have been getting a lot of questions on the site lately. I will answer those shortly. There have been a lot of major developments and at this point we have to keep the information confidential as we are researching everything so that we can give you an accurate account of what is going on.

To all of you: Please do no think that we have given up because we have not been posting a lot lately. We are working on stories now and will be getting them out to you.

Finally, the war has not ended and will not end until the sociopath (Rodrick) has stopped.

Thank you,

Adam Galvez


UPDATE: I was contacted by Aaron Kelly later in the day. During our first conversation Kelly admitted that he was aware of the story and that he actually "Liked" it but did not want it posted. He requested that I remove the content, I advised him I would talk to my administrator and hung up.
Kelly would later deny that neither he nor Warner were responsible for the writing of the post. In my opinion he is being untruthful. Kelly is advertised for knowing or having knowledge of internet crime and that he is a tech. I find it surprising and unbelievable that somebody with so much knowledge of computers would find themselves in this situation. .