Court hammers operator of Internet intimidation sites

4-5-2014 Arizona, National:

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.

Vega v Ryan

11-14-2013 Arizona:

Vega v Ryan

The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition based on ineffective assistance in counsel’s failure to familiarize himself with the file and call witnesses who could provide exculpatory testimony.

After petitioner’s conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, child molestation, and sexual abuse, his trial lawyer learned that the victim had recanted her allegations to her priest. The panel held that counsel’s failure to familiarize himself with petitioner’s file led to a failure to present a key witness to the jury, and that a reasonable lawyer would not have made such an “inexplicable” decision.

The panel also held that counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial, because the priest’s testimony about the victim’s recantation was not merely cumulative of her own testimony admitting the recantation to her mother, but could have tipped the scales in petitioner’s favor.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Sex offender registration rules don't apply on tribal lands.

9-24-2012 Arizona:


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

Sex offender aquitted of failing to comply charge

Obviously the police, when checking registrants' homes, has no sort of message system "get back to me" and instead falsely charges registrants w/a crime.

6-22-2013 Arizona:

A registered sex offender was acquitted of charges in Circuit Court on Monday.

Chad Everette Brown, a level 3 sex offender, had been charged with failure to comply with sex offender reporting requirements.

Lt. Paul Rice of the Van Buren County sheriff’s office testified that he had received information that Brown no longer lived at the address provided to the sheriff’s office. He said he went to the home on Prim Rose Lane in the Burnt Ridge area several times in March 2012 to speak with Brown and was never able to find him home. A warrant for Brown’s arrest was issued March 29, 2012, according to court documents.

Brown’s sister and mother testified in the bench trial before Judge Charles E. Clawson that Brown worked long hours away from the home, but did in fact live there. Clawson acquitted Brown of the charge. ..Source.. by VB Democrat

When Can Sex Offender Registration Requirement be Removed?

Note: Pertains ONLY to Arizona as of this date. Always check w/the lawyer if reading this after that date, link to law office below.

4-29-2011 Arizona:

Sex offender registration orders can be either "mandatory" or "discretionary" under Arizona law. Virtually all mandatory registration sex offenses require permanent registration. In very limited circumstances however, mandatory registration requirements can be withdrawn. When registration is discretionary, i.e., the judge had the choice of whether or not to impose a registration requirement, then the court may remove the registration requirement by request at any time.

Offenses for which sex offender registration is mandatory are set forth by list in Arizona Revise Statutes § 13 – 3821. Those offenses include the following:

..Unlawful imprisonment of a minor
..Kidnapping of a minor
..Sexual abuse of a minor
..Sexual conduct with a minor
..Molestation of a child
..Continuous sexual abuse of a child
..Taking a child for the purpose of prostitution
..Child prostitution
..Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor

..Sexual exploitation of a minor
..Luring a minor for sexual exploitation
..Sex trafficking of a minor
..A second violation of indecent exposure to a child under 15

..A second violation of public sexual indecency to a child under 15
..A third violation of indecent exposure to any party
..A third violation of public sexual indecency to any party
..Aggravated luring a minor for sexual exploitation

Discretionary registration offenses include any other offense listed in Chapter 14 of the Arizona Criminal Code or any offense where there is a finding that the offense was motivated by sexual interest. Examples of other chapter 14 offenses that provide for discretionary sex offender registration under Arizona law include sexual abuse of an adult, indecent exposure, and public sexual indecency.

When an offense requires mandatory registration, there are only three limited circumstances in which the registration requirement can be removed. First, the registration requirement may be removed if the offender was under 18 at the time of the offense. Second, if the registration offense was unlawful imprisonment only, the registration requirement can be removed after the passage of a certain period of time. Third, if the offense was kidnapping only, the registration requirement may be removed after a certain period of time. ..Source.. by Law Offices of Joshua S. Davdson