Due to ongoing and future litigation and for the preservation of evidence, access to the content on this website will be limited. Appropriate updates will appear on this page so check back often. Any questions or if anyone needs specific documents,depositions,affidavits etc please email your request.If anyone has any information about anyone on this list below OR if any of the persons below would like to come forward feel free to contact via email Courtkeymail@gmail.com
DEPOSITION OF JANINE GRAVES SET FOR MARCH 15 2017
JANINE M GRAVES ADMITS IN DEPOSITION THAT CLAIMS SHE FILED AGAINST RODRICK IN FED COURT WERE FALSE. stay Tuned..
Janine Graves filed false claims in Federal court that she was extorted and listed as a registered sex offender on various websites however, When asked under oath she denied that ever happened. (similar to Susan Galvez below) Janine Graves also denied the same when asked if she was ever extorted. Janine Graves refused to appear at a Federal trial ultimately having her claims dismissed. Janine Graves claims her attorney Janice Bellucci instructed her not to show at trial to testify in her own case.
Graves, Janine M. – Vol. I, (Page 66:1 to 66:6)
1 Were you ever listed on a website where you were
2 identified as someone that was required to register as a
3 sex offender?
4 A. I was not expressly — there was no information that
5 said I was expressly required to register or identified
6 me specifically as a sex offender.
Graves, Janine M. – Vol. I, (Pages 29:13 to 30:8)
13 Have you ever been charged with a crime?
14 A. I have not.
15 Q. Have you ever been accused of committing a crime?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Do you have any criminal public records of any kind?
18 A. Only a speeding ticket.
19 Q. Do you have any criminal records that are not
21 A. No.
22 Q. Are you currently listed online as committing a
23 crime of any kind?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Have you ever been listed online as committing a
2 A. No.
3 Q. Have you ever been accused of being a sex offender?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Have you ever been listed online as a sex offender?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Have you ever accused anyone of extorting you?
8 A. No.
Graves, Janine M. – Vol. I, (Pages 14:18 to 15:7)
18 Q. Please turn to page 8, No. 12. The admission was
19 admit that defendant’s claim in the third amended
20 complaint asserting a claim of extortion requiring that a
21 payment had been made by defendant and that payment was
22 received by plaintiff was false. Can you please read
23 your answer?
24 A. Deny. Again, I never claimed that I was personally
25 extorted by the plaintiff.
1 Q. Your testimony is that you have never made the claim
2 of extortion against myself?
3 A. I have never made the claim of personal extortion
4 against yourself.
5 Q. In any court case?
6 A. I’ve never made the claim that you have personally
7 extorted me or that I made payments to you.
Graves, Janine M. – Vol. I, (Pages 97:9 to 98:11)
9 Q. Let me go through this public record here. I’ll
10 just start asking you a couple of questions. Did your
11 husband ever admit to you that he engaged in sexual
12 activity with his dog Buddy?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did your husband ever disclose to you that he put a
15 cat in the microwave?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did he ever disclose to you that on many occasions
18 he engaged in sexual activities at Fred Meyer restrooms?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Please turn to —
21 A. I don’t dispute what you say, but he didn’t —
22 sorry, he didn’t give me that specific detail, nor did I
23 ask for it.
24 Q. Did Mr. Graves, your husband, ever disclose to you
25 that he was diagnosed as incurable?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did he ever disclose to you that Mr. Graves
3 participating in church related pro-social activities
4 involves him in high-risk behaviors with teenage boys?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Currently in your business you are in churches a lot
7 with the Seattle Wedding Videography business that you
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you feel that that’s appropriate?
11 A. Yes.
GLENN WYRICK SERVED LAWSUIT AND DEPOSITION SET MARCH 16 2017 (Rescheduled)
Susan Galvez (Depo # 2) Admits Filing false claims (When asked under oath about false claims she filed). ” I am responsible”
CHUCK RODRICK WINS ANTI-SLAPP SUIT IN NEVADA – FAKE CLAIMS EXPOSED BY CONVICTED SEX
OFFENDER – LAWYERS TO BE HELD LIABLE Stay Tuned For The Story…
LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST DANIEL VANWAES & JENNIFER VANWAES
DANIEL VAN WAES SERVED KING COUNTY CASE
Daniel W. VanWaes of Almo / Murray, KY was convicted of 2 Counts of Sexual Abuse in Arizona. Daniel VanWaes filed false fabricated claims in Federal Court his business Peco Signs along with his personal property were damaged. He claimed he was forced to move from his home due to proximity to a school, claiming the reason was his sexual abuse crimes were available online alerting neighbors and authorities of his violation.. Federal court judge ruled against VanWaes last year spawning the new lawsuit filed today. Daniel’s wife Jennifer VanWaes is also named in the lawsuit for aiding and abetting, conspiracy & for her participation in Dan Van Waes false fabricated claims. Daniel VanWaes was allowed to appear as John Doe # 6 during the Federal case allowing him to be virtually invisible until now. STAY TUNED FOR MORE..
Judge orders Susan K Galvez to appear in contempt of court hearing for refusing to answer written questions during discovery of the case against her. Stay Tuned..
JENNIFER VAN WAES SERVED KING COUNTY CASE
DANIEL VAN WAES SERVED KING COUNTY CASE
EDWIN KEITH JOHNSON SERVED KING COUNTY CASE
GLENN WYRICK SERVED In Case KING COUNTY CASE
NICHOLAS MAIETTA SERVED In Case KING COUNTY CASE
Aaron Alex Graves AKA Jeremy Ryan Graves Served In Case KING COUNTY CASE 16-2-23936-6
Refuse to show to obey court ordered subpoena and refuse to show up for deposition. Civil Arrest Warrant To Be Requested. Stay Tuned
UPDATE: SERVICE BY PUBLICATION GRANTED FOR JANINE GRAVES FOR HER CIVIL LAWSUIT 16-2-23936-6
Major David Ellis AATC Update
VARIOUS LAWSUITS PENDING IN MAY/JUNE 2017
UPDATE: 12/22/2016 7 Hour deposition of Adam Galvez on 12/20/2016 gave an eyeopening deposition and testifies under oath that Major David Ellis USMC INTENTIONALLY CREATED FALSE FAKE NEWS about Charles Rodrick & His Girlfriend as well as others, along with their family members. David Ellis sent this fake news to Adam on MULTIPLE occasions to be posted online. (David Ellis’s activity is actually worse than originally thought). Stay tuned to the damning testimony that will shed light on the travesty that occurred over the last 5 years.
More Depositions Are Scheduled Next Month…
UPDATE: 12/04 Judge Orders Employee Of Daniel R Warner / Kelley Warner Law Firm “Barri Grossman” to be served by publication Stay Tuned For The Story. ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT CASE: CV 2016-052228 UPDATE: Service By Publication Complete. Depositions and Subpoenas Pending.
UPDATE: SUSAN GALVEZ SHORELINE WA DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN 11/16: SUSAN GALVEZ ADMITS UNDER OATH ALL CLAIMS SHE FILED IN ARIZONA DISTRICT COURT AGAINST CHARLES RODRICK AND OTHERS WERE “COMPLETELY FALSE” & were fabricated in order to get her child molesters son’s record off the internet. She blames her attorney Janice Bellucci for the fraud quoting “she had an agenda”. Susan also said Robert Anglen wrote about her in articles claiming she was a victim but never actually communicated with Robert Anglen claiming Robert acted on his own and he is a FRAUD.
Small Sample Below Of Over 100 Pages Of Sworn Deposition Of Susan K Galvez Taken 11/16/2016 Exposing The False Claims Against Charles Rodrick & Others. Susan Blames Here Attorney Janice Bellucci For The FRAUDULENT LAWSUIT. Susan’s son Adam Galvez admitted under oath in his deposition similar circumstances in the same case. We are slowly unwinding these lies stay tuned..
We are intentionally withholding testimony about how “Victim Letters” were given out by authorities. Not all depositions or testimony will be made public as some agreements may prohibit public dissemination.
3 CLIENTS COME FORWARD AND BLAME ATTORNEY JANICE BELLUCCI FOR FALSE CLAIMS MADE IN FEDERAL COURT AGAINST CHARLES RODRICK
“JANICE BELLUCCI HAD AN AGENDA”
Galvez, Susan, (Page 41:17 to 41:21)
17 Q. So do you think that by filing false claims in federal court
18 that that has —
19 A. Excuse me. I didn’t file false claims. My —
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. — lawyer did.
Galvez, Susan, (Pages 31:24 to 34:6)
24 Q. In the Arizona federal case, one of your claims is that you
25 had been convicted — you were listed as being convicted of
1 a sex crime. It was one of your claims in the — in — in
2 the Arizona federal case.
3 A. That was Janice’s claim.
4 Q. Okay. So Janice Bellucci made that claim and you did not?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Janice Bellucci made the claim?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you did not make that claim yourself?
9 A. No.
10 Q. So you admit that that’s — that was a completely false
11 allegation in the federal suit?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. There was also an allegation that myself and the websites
14 that we’ve mentioned previously had shown that you were
15 required to register as a sex offender.
16 A. I didn’t make that claim.
17 Q. Who made that claim?
18 A. Janice.
19 Q. Janice didn’t — did she consult with you at all —
20 A. No.
21 Q. — when she made that?
22 She just put that into the record?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. There was also a claim that you had communications with
1 A. False.
2 Q. And you’ve already testified that that was false as well.
3 A. False.
4 Q. And who made that —
5 A. Janice.
6 Q. Janice made that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. It also says that — in the Arizona federal case, the claim
9 was that your photo and place of employment were
10 disseminated on the websites Offendex, SORarchives, and/or
11 Sexoffenderrecord; is that true?
12 A. That’s false. Janice said that; I didn’t.
13 Q. Janice said that. You did not —
14 A. I did not.
15 Q. — relay that to your attorney?
16 A. Janice said that.
17 Q. Janice said that. And you did — that was a false claim as
19 A. That was false.
20 Q. In the Arizona federal case, it also referred to that the —
21 that you had received monies from myself.
22 A. False.
23 Q. And how did that claim get in the lawsuit?
24 A. Janice.
25 Q. And was that a false claim?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Again the claim was that I extorted you. Is that a true
3 statement in that case?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Who made that claim?
6 A. Janice Bellucci.
Galvez, Susan, (Pages 79:24 to 80:1)
24 Q. Do you feel that if it weren’t for Janice Bellucci’s actions
25 that you might not be here today?
1 A. Probably.
Galvez, Susan, (Page 71:11 to 71:16)
11 And so you’ve confirmed and admitted today that all of your
12 claims against me in the federal case in Arizona were false?
13 A. As far as I know.
14 Q. And your testimony is that Janice Bellucci is the one that
15 filed those, unknowing to you?
16 A. Yes.
Galvez, Susan, (Page 62:12 to 62:17)
12 Q. Have you come to realize that you filed false claims against
13 me? Whether knowingly or not knowingly, you — do you
14 understand that false claims with your name on it in federal
15 court were filed against me that were false? Do you
16 understand that at this point?
17 A. At this point, yes.
Galvez, Susan, (Pages 59:25 to 60:2)
25 Q. Do you think Janice Bellucci is responsible for — for the
1 wrongdoings in this case?
2 A. Yes.
1 A. Probably.
2 Q. If a lawsuit were filed against Janice Bellucci, your
3 attorney, for doing what you say she did, would you testify
4 against her?
5 A. Yes.
SIMILAR TESTIMONY FROM ADAM GALVEZ (SUSAN’S SON)
Galvez, Adam – Vol. I, (Pages 78:20 to 79:3)
20 Q. Can you please read line 7, please?
21 A. “I am not required to register as a sex
22 offender nor have I ever been required to register as a
23 sex offender.”
24 Q. Is that statement true or false?
25 A. That would be an incorrect statement.
1 Q. And you signed this document. So you are
2 stating that that is a false statement?
3 A. It was a misunderstanding.
Galvez, Adam – Vol. I, (Page 95:11 to 95:24)
11 Q. Can you please read the line again?
12 A. — your website. “John Doe #5 has requested
13 and paid a fee for removal of his name and photo from a
14 privately owned website; however his name and photo
15 remain on that website.”
16 Q. Is that what you told your attorney?
17 A. I believe that there was a misunderstanding.
18 That’s not what I told my attorney.
19 Q. How is it a misunderstanding?
20 A. Because it’s not — that’s not correct.
21 That’s not what happened.
22 Q. So this is a false statement in a federal
24 A. This is a mistake in a federal document.
25 Q. That’s enough. Is that statement true?
1 A. No, it’s not.
2 Q. It’s false?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Why did you post a false statement on your
6 A. Because in the beginning we weren’t 100
7 percent sure how this all worked out.
Galvez, Adam – Vol. I, (Page 178:10 to 178:21)
10 Q. And that information that was posted on your
11 website was used to create this lawsuit in the federal
12 court as well as the state court?
13 MS. BELLUCCI: Objection. That is speculative
14 and also calls for privileged information. Do not
16 MR. RODRICK: He’s admitted that he’s put
17 false information into this lawsuit.
18 MS. BELLUCCI: We’ll be clearing that up later
19 when I have my chance for cross-examination, Mr.
20 Rodrick. I’m sure you’re going to give me sufficient
21 time for that today.
Depositions will post here as soon as it is processed. Stay Tuned..
Investigative Journalist Robert Anglen Commits ACTS OF JOURNALISM FRAUD OVER 4 YEAR PERIOD
Reporter Robert Anglen of NBC Phoenix Channel 12 News and The Arizona Republic repeatedly intentionally falsified the facts in a series of articles. Working as an “Investigative Journalist” for the Gannett Company properties, Robert Anglen worked with an attorney Janice Bellucci of the California Reform Sex Offender Laws to advance a fraudulent lawsuit based on blatantly fabricated claims. Robert Anglen’s work repeatedly misrepresented, ignored and blatantly lied about the facts to support a premeditated narrative that would advance a sex offender advocacy agenda. Also being an associate faculty member at Arizona State University, it is integral that journalist instructors would both teach and themselves abide by the dictates of “journalistic integrity” in providing the TRUTH to their reader. The premise being advanced: the poor put upon convicted sex offender. It was not reporting the news; it was literally creating the news. The 60 page report released details the sordid facts of this intentional media manipulation.
ROBERT ANGLEN ACCUSED OF PREDATORY JOURNALISM
The truth needs to be told and will.. Robert Anglen of the Arizona Republic, a Gannett Company property, with his tales of fallacy having also appeared with the USA Today and Channel 12 News Phoenix, is an irresponsible, unethical, unprofessional, integrity challenged, repeated liar and charlatan who operates under the guise of being a so-called “investigative journalist.” This piece is the response to the four (4) years of abuse of journalism perpetrated by Robert Anglen. It is an EXTENSIVE recap of the FACTUAL events that occurred. It is a LONG rendition of the issues that surrounded these circumstances. This is difficult to respond to 3.5 years of printed deception, an 11 piece series of articles totaling over 50 pages of content, multiple TV news segments and a number of online video posts in some pithy manner. Especially when taking into account the amount of lies, misrepresentation and predatory journalism practiced by Robert Anglen that needs to be addressed.
ARIZONA REPUBLIC REVOKES “INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST TITLE”
UPDATE: Since the release of this story Robert Anglen it appears (according to his own facebook) Robert was been demoted from investigative Journalist to the Circulation And Sales department for the Arizona Republic then after this page appeared he frantically changed his facebook to “consumer investigations” so who knows what he is doing now. Robert was however required to remove Channel 12 reference from his facebook page Channel 12 News indicated in a email to courtkey.com ” We no longer have any ties to Robert Anglen “ Arizona Republic is on the right path to showing Robert The Door just like Cincinnati did..
Recent depositions are exposing even more blatant fraud claiming Robert wrote about them and quoted them as being a victim saying under oath. “I have never spoken to Robert Anglen” & “Robert Anglen Lied” When confronted Robert Anglen says “What Does It Matter” The depositions and sworn declarations will be posted here as soon as they are processed sometime in Dec Robert Anglen has “Gone Dark” and refuses to address any of the allegations made against him.
UPDATE: Channel 12 News said in a official email. “We no longer have ties with Robert Anglen”
Approx 50 Exhibits Available Upon Request. Courtkeymail@gmail.com
RESULTS OF ARIZONA FEDERAL TRIAL EXPOSE FRAUD & FAKE CLAIMS
For those following the case below is a summary of what happened in the fabricated case against Charles Rodrick (yes Robert Anglen was the reporter) In short there were 60 false claims and 58 of them were ultimately dismissed 2 are pending rule 60 fraud litigation. The recent lawsuits filed against some of the people that filed this phony lawsuit have been recently deposed & some admitting the claims were fabricated and completely false with blame going directly to Attorney Janice Bellucci. Fake Complaints Have Also Been Uncovered.
Attorney Janice Bellucci Helps Sex Offenders File False Complaints To The FBI
58 FAKE CLAIMS EXPOSED: SEX OFFENDERS REFUSE TO EVEN SHOW UP
Frivolous claims exposed to have no legal basis.
Janice Bellucci Clients Exposing Her Fraudulent Lawsuit: “She Had An Agenda” “The Claims Were Fabricated” ” I Refused To Lie”
Janice Bellucci is president of California RSOL- NATIONAL RSOL SHARES THE SAME CO-FOUNDER AS NAMBLA
BELOW ARE THE RESULTS OF A FAKE LAWSUIT FILED BY SEX OFFENDERS AND OTHERS
In March 2013 attorney Janice Bellucci of the California Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL) filed a lawsuit against Defendants associated with the websites Offendex.com, SORarchives.com and SexOffenderRecord.com (SOR websites). After 40 grueling months of litigation the trial date finally arrived. Despite the extraordinary efforts of the Plaintiffs (usually it is the Plaintiffs clamoring for “their day in court”) to delay, postpone and/or eliminate the conclusion of the litigation process. For the efforts of the RSOL, who initiated and financial supported (bankrolled) the entire lawsuit, it was a colossal defeat. There were eight (8) convicted sex offenders alleging various legal claims specifically addressing issues associated with their criminal histories and the right to have such factual information being disseminated over the Internet by the SOR websites. The final tally being: the sex offender advocacy agenda ZERO (0 – goose egg) to the SOR websites and the protection of the First Amendment Freedom of Speech (amongst others) FORTY (40). A brief breakdown of the claims and all the Plaintiffs involved who had been hiding in anonymity behind John and Jane Doe status throughout the 40 months of litigation while bashing the opposition Defendants by name (along with friends and family members) in the national media with their misrepresentations, fabrication and outright lies. Defendants are not expecting the appropriate retraction to come from Huffington Post, CNN, USA Today and/or The Arizona Republic and Channel 12 News as it would require an admission that they had been completely derelict in performing proper due diligence and vetting the “story” with objective analysis.
Misc Documents To Read
THE CLAIMS MADE IN FEDERAL COURT AGAINST CHUCK RODRICK “FABRICATED”
Violation of RICO – Extortion by Theft Violation of Right to Privacy Negligent/Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress False Light Invasion of Privacy Defamation
John Doe #1: Frank Lindsay of Grover Beach, CA was convicted of Lewd or Lascivious Acts with a CHILD UNDER 14 Years of Age. He has a lifetime registration requirement with California’s Megan’s Law Registry; his factual criminal history is made available by accessing the SOR database. Republishing his factual criminal history was protected by Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA) and all 5 of his claims were dismissed. Although on the original witness list, Frank Lindsay was nowhere to be found at trial to support his bogus claims.
Frank Lindsay was also involved in the conspiracy to commit fraud when he and 5 others paid for a EXPEDITED review just a week prior to filing the lawsuit in order to have a RICO claim AND CLAIM IT WAS FOR A REMOVAL. It is believed attorney Janice Bellucci & David Michael Ellis were the masterminds behind the fraud. We are looking into this deeper to see if there is grounds for a criminal complaint but at a minimum a new case will be prepared for ANYONE that participated in this fraud. Stay Tuned..
John Doe #2: Larry Anthony Quintero of Morongo Valley, CA was convicted of Send/Sell/Distribute Matter Depicting a Minor (Child Porn). He no longer appears on the California Megan’s Law Registry, his factual criminal history is available on the SOR database. Republishing his factual criminal history was protected by Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA) and all 5 of his claims were dismissed. Although on the original witness list, Anthony Quintero was nowhere to be found at trial to support his bogus claims.
Larry Anthony Quintero was also involved in the conspiracy to commit fraud when he and 5 others paid for a EXPEDITED review just a week prior to filing the lawsuit in order to have a RICO claim AND CLAIM IT WAS FOR A REMOVAL. Larry Quintero is a unique situation because he actually paid AFTER the lawsuit was actually filed. (perhaps he forgot). It is believed attorney Janice Bellucci & David Michael Ellis were the masterminds behind the fraud. We are looking into this deeper to see if there is grounds for a criminal complaint but at a minimum a new case will be prepared for ANYONE that participated in this fraud. Stay Tuned..
John Doe #3: Duane Alfred Ledward of San Francisco, CA was convicted of Indecent Assault Sexually Battery. He no longer appears on the California Megan’s Law Registry, his factual criminal history is available on the SOR database. Republishing his factual criminal history was protected by Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA) and all 5 of his claims were dismissed. Although on the original witness list, Duane Ledward was nowhere to be found at trial to support his bogus claims.
Duane Alfred Ledward was also involved in the conspiracy to commit fraud when he and 5 others paid for a EXPEDITED review just a week prior to filing the lawsuit in order to have a RICO claim AND CLAIM IT WAS FOR A REMOVAL. It is believed attorney Janice Bellucci & David Michael Ellis were the masterminds behind the fraud. We are looking into this deeper to see if there is grounds for a criminal complaint. but at a minimum a new case will be prepared for ANYONE that participated in this fraud. Stay Tuned..
LAWSUIT FILED & SERVED
APOLOGIZES THEN FILES FALSE CLAIMS ANYWAY
John Doe #4: Jeremy Ryan Graves AKA Arron Alex Graves of Seattle, WA was convicted of 2 counts of Child Rape (14 year old boy) and exposed for multiple sexual acts with his dog “buddy” along with putting cat in the microwave in front of children. He no longer appears on the Washington Sex Offender Registry, his factual criminal history is available on the SOR database. He also claimed his record online was hurting his Seattle Wedding Video business. Republishing his factual criminal history was protected by Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA) and all 5 of his claims were dismissed. Although on the original witness list, Ryan Graves was nowhere to be found at trial to support his bogus claims.
Jeremy “Ryan” Graves Apologized However Decided To File The False Claims Anyway CLICK TO READ
ADMITS IN DEPOSITION HE FILED FALSE CLAIMS BUT BLAMES ATTORNEY JANICE BELLUCCI
John Doe #5: Adam Blair Galvez of Shoreline, WA was convicted of the Child Molestation of a 12/13 year old boy. He no longer appears on the Washington Sex Offender Registry although required to register yearly, his factual criminal history is available on the SOR database. Republishing his factual criminal history was protected by Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA) and all 5 of his claims were dismissed. During sworn deposition he admitted his claims were FALSE and the facts surrounding his required sex offender registration. Attorney Janice Bellucci had ignored his input and went forward with knowingly filing illegal false claims in U.S. District Court. Although present at the trial, Adam Galvez (alias Dr. Adam Daniels) would not be called to take the witness stand as it had been documented the degree of misrepresentation, lies and even perjury that he had committed during the 40 month litigation.
12/20/2017 Adam Galvez was deposed in Lynnwood jail for 7 hours and testifies David Ellis sent him fake news about Chuck Rodrick and others to be posted. Stay Tuned
LAWSUIT FILED & SERVED
John Doe #6: Daniel W. VanWaes of Almo, KY was convicted of 2 Counts of Sexual Abuse charges from Arizona. He no longer appears on the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry, his factual criminal history is available on the SOR database. Republishing his factual criminal history was protected by Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA) and all 5 of his claims were dismissed. Although on the original witness list, Daniel Van Waes was nowhere to be found at trial to support his bogus claims.
Daniel W Van Waes was also involved in the conspiracy to commit fraud when he and 5 others paid for a EXPEDITED review just a week prior to filing the lawsuit in order to have a RICO claim AND CLAIM IT WAS FOR A REMOVAL. It is believed attorney Janice Bellucci & David Michael Ellis were the masterminds behind the fraud. We are looking into this deeper to see if there is grounds for a criminal complaint. but at a minimum a new case will be prepared for ANYONE that participated in this fraud. Stay Tuned..
LAWSUIT FILED & SERVED
John Doe #7: Edwin Keith Johnson of Johnson City, TN was convicted of Attempted Aggravated Sexual Battery (Rape of an 11 Year Old Relative). He has a lifetime requirement to register with the Tennessee Sex Offender Registry as a VIOLENT OFFENDER and his factual criminal history is made available by accessing the SOR database. Classification: Violent. Keith Johnson is just one example that the lawsuit’s entire purpose was an Abuse of Process of the Federal Court system to harass the defendants. The day before the long awaited trial, he disclosed to the Court that he was refusing to attend the trial that he had initiated the litigation 40 months prior. ALL claims of Keith Johnson were Dismissed by the Judge on the first day of the trial.
Edwin Keith Johnson was also involved in the conspiracy to commit fraud when he and 5 others paid for a EXPEDITED review just a week prior to filing the lawsuit in order to have a RICO claim AND CLAIM IT WAS FOR A REMOVAL. It is believed attorney Janice Bellucci & David Michael Ellis were the masterminds behind the fraud. We are looking into this deeper to see if there is grounds for a criminal complaint. but at a minimum a new case will be prepared for ANYONE that participated in this fraud. Stay Tuned..
LAWSUIT PENDING: REFUSES TO BE DEPOSED IGNORES COURT ORDER SUBPOENA TO APPEAR, CONTEMPT HEARING SOON.
John Doe #8: Frank Silva of Eugene, Oregon was charged for two sex crimes in 2007. One count Encouraging CHILD Sexual Abuse 2 and one count Possession CHILD Sexual Material 2. He made an Alford Plea in order to only be found guilty of the Possession Child Porn Charge. He was required to sign a confession which states: “I unlawfully and illegally possessed a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a CHILD and intended to use the visual depiction to INDUCE a CHILD to participate or engage in sexually explicit conduct.” In Oregon, the Possession of Child Porn 2 conviction did NOT require the registration to the Oregon Sex Offender Registry. Frank Silva alleged the SOR website falsely identified him as a “Registered Sex Offender.” This would be proven a fabricated claim as the disclaimers found on the websites clearly state the profiled sex offenders had been “convicted of a sex crime” and may or may not have been required to register with a Sex Offender Registry. If this had not been the case, it would not have made a difference as the assertion by Frank Silva that he had not been required to register with a Sex Offender Registry was dramatically proven to be false. In 2011 Frank Silva was charged and convicted of Felony Drug Trafficking in the State of Virginia. Due to his extended incarceration in the State of Virginia, the state’s statutes explicitly require that a person convicted of a sex crime that INVOLVED a minor in any context, it is a mandatory registration with the State of Virginia Sex Offender Registry for Crimes Involving Minors. The verdict by the Jury ruled against ALL the claims of Frank Silva and in favor of the Defendants.
Frank Silva was also involved in the conspiracy to commit fraud when he and 5 others paid for a EXPEDITED review just a week prior to filing the lawsuit in order to have a RICO claim AND CLAIM IT WAS FOR A REMOVAL. It is believed attorney Janice Bellucci & David Michael Ellis were the masterminds behind the fraud. We are looking into this deeper to see if there is grounds for a criminal complaint. but at a minimum a new case will be prepared for ANYONE that participated in this fraud. Stay Tuned..
PLAINTIFFS GROUP 2: NON SEX OFFENDERS INVOLVED WITH CASE
An Attempted Distraction to Divert the Focus from the Legal and Factual Basis of the Claims. This Smoke and Mirror Show was Exposed for the Farce it was.
LAWSUITS – BAR COMPLAINTS- ATTORNEY DECEIT STATUTE – CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS ARE PENDING
Attorney Janice Bellucci devised a legal strategy to include false claims of NON sex offenders in order to ride the coattails of the allegations associated with convicted sex offenders. By making these fabricated claims, introducing family members as “victims” of cyber harassment, it would confuse, convolute and generally create a narrative of the appearance of impropriety that was not actually based on the legal and factual basis of the claims alleged in the lawsuit.
JANINE GRAVES CIVIL LAWSUIT..
Note: There is another Janine Graves in Washington area the photo below will hopefully avoid any confusion.
LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST JANINE GRAVES . DEPOSITION SET FOR MARCH 15 2017
KING COUNTY CASE 16-2-23936-6
Email firstname.lastname@example.org to initiate contact.
Jane Doe #9: Janine Graves of Seattle, WA is the wife of convicted child rapist (2 counts) Jeremy “Ryan” Graves. AKA ARRON ALEX GRAVES of Seattle, WA was convicted of 2 counts of Child Rape (14 year old boy) and exposed for multiple sexual acts with his dog “buddy” along with putting cat in the microwave in front of children. Janine Graves filed a lawsuit to help her husbands case and falsely claim she was identified on the SOR websites as a “convicted sex offender required to register with a Sex Offender Registry,” was “threatened” with “extortion” to remove these allegations and paid to have content associated to her removed from the SOR websites. She claimed she was personally damaged along with the family business Seattle Wedding Videography. All of her claims were submitted fabrication by attorney Janice Bellucci to bolster the case by creating false allegations from a NON convicted sex offender. On the DAY of trial the charade was exposed, even after the Federal Judge had ruled to allow for her testimony to be done as a teleconference from her HOME (sitting in her lazy boy); After 40 long months Janine Graves withdrew ALL of the claims on the day of trial refusing to testify and participate in the trial. All 5 of her claims were dismissed by the Judge. A lawsuit has since been filed and Janine Graves needs to be served.
“I FILED FALSE CLAIMS TO GET MY SON REMOVED FROM THE SEX OFFENDER SITE”
ADMITS ALL CLAIMS WERE FABRICATED AND FALSE BLAMES ATTORNEY JANICE BELLUCCI
LAWSUIT FILED KING COUNTY WASHINGTON AGAINST SUSAN GALVEZ
Jane Doe #10: Susan Galvez of Shoreline, WA is the mother of convicted child molester (12/13 year old boy) Adam Galvez who at 44 has been unemployed for over 20 years choosing to live and be supported by his mother. Susan Galvez claimed she was identified on the SOR websites as a “convicted sex offender required to register with a Sex Offender Registry,” was “threatened” with “extortion” to remove these allegations and paid to have content associated to her removed from the SOR websites.
The degree of utter ridiculousness and Abuse of Process of the litigation process was exposed for all present to witness when Susan Galvez was asked by the defense counsel to confirm her allegations that she had been “identified on the website at issue as a sex offender but who have not been convicted of a sex offense.” To which she responded: “I have no idea what you’re talking about.” Believing the question must have been misunderstood, the defense counsel reworded the same question: “So you don’t remember suing my clients because you claim that one or more of the three websites at issue falsely identifies you as an individual required to register as a sex offender?” Again the answer was the same shocking admission: “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”A third attempt of clarification was requested: “So that would be false, right? You’re not claiming that….–“ To be interrupted by Susan Galvez with an emphatic confirmation without reservation: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” After 40 months of litigation with OVER 400 docket entries to the Court’s Record (a lot of entries), Susan Galvez testified she had no idea what her claims in the lawsuit had been and/or submitted by attorney Janice Bellucci. The Jury found in favor of the Defendants dismissing all 5 of the claims of Susan Galvez.
SUSAN GALVEZ DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN 11/16: Susan Admits ALL CLAIMS SHE FILED WERE “COMPLETELY FABRICATED & FALSE”. She blames her attorney Janice Bellucci for the fraud quoting “she had an agenda”.
GLENN WYRICK ASHLAND VA SAYS “Janice Bellucci Used Me To Legitimize Her Case”
DEPOSITION SET MARCH 16 2017
John Doe #11: Glenn Wyrick of Ashland, VA was the brother-in-law to a deceased convicted sex offender Robert Knighton. He was interjected into the lawsuit as a non sex offender to conjure up sympathy for family members when a deceased relative’s criminal history can still be accessed online. There is no legal or factual basis for such claims but this did not dissuade attorney Janice Bellucci from Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution. It is simple, public records released into the public domain do NOT just magically disappear upon the death of a person. This is especially true in the digital age where all data is easily stored, replicated and retrieved.Glenn Wyrick withdrew his claims from the lawsuit two (2) weeks before the trial. In an email sent to the Defendants he would apologize for having made the false allegations. He pointedly discussed his dissatisfaction with the legal representation that was cause for him to file a complaint with the State Bar of California againstattorney Janice Bellucci. He would expand on this subject by pointedly stating she had repeatedly “lied” in her handling this case (more on this to come). He would also state that an article that included an interview with him with national media coverage authored by Gannett Company (Arizona Republic, Channel 12 News & USA Today) journalist Robert Anglen was categorically “FALSE” (emphasis added by Mr. Wyrick). He would further state: “He [Anglen] wrote I said things about you and your websites that I never said.” Glenn Wyrick would file a Motion that dismissed attorney Janice Bellucci from further legal representation and requested all of his claims be withdrawn from the lawsuit. All 5 of Glenn Wyrick’s claims were dismissed by the Judge.
VARIOUS LAWSUITS PENDING IN MAY/JUNE 2017
David Ellis of Phoenix, AZ had three (3) of the five (5) claims in the lawsuit dismissed. Two (2) of the claims, Invasion of Privacy – False light and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress are subject to further extensive litigation and still being challenged by the Defendants. We will keep readers apprised as these claims navigate the litigation process for a final conclusion. He admitted that an ex-employee who was his executive assistant was the one responsible for authoring and posting derogatory allegation against David Ellis in which Rodrick was blamed. The content in dispute had NOT been originally posted online by the defendants as alleged in the lawsuit. The republishing of content found online is a legal question of immunity from civil liability protected by the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and requires a thorough legal review. Future updates on the progress of the litigation and a final conclusion will be made available to interested parties.
Somewhere along the line the jury believed that Rodrick posted defamatory content about him and his business despite sworn declaration and video deposition of an employee of David Ellis had admitted to have made the postings. The exhibit was not entered into the trial as the content of the original suit did not contain such allegations. Sworn videotaped testimony sworn declarations will be used in future litigation. PERHAPS THIS WILL CHANGE THE NARRATIVE DAVID ELLIS HAS FRAUDULENTLY PRESENTED TO THE COURTS… A NEW LAWSUIT IS PENDING
It is a very trying, frustrating and exhausting endeavor to be subjected to “litigation intimidation” tactics of an unethical attorney such as Janice Bellucci representing the agenda of the RSOL. That such bully tactics were deployed to advance a victory for convicted sex offenders and their never ending attempt to hide in anonymity in our communities is of little surprise. That they so utterly failed is worthy of note and certainly a matter of public interest. Battling to a victory against the efforts of such sex offender advocacy groups as the California RSOL who initiate lawsuits based on fabricated allegation is a victory for all our communities. Especially our most cherished citizens – our children.
On a final note, the only solace after such a hard fought victory is that the Plaintiffs that lost all their claims in the lawsuit (all eleven ) are subject to personal liability for a Judgment of Attorney fees. Not an insignificant amount after 40 months of intensive and contentious litigation’s. With the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in RST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375, this now also applies to those Plaintiffs that were dismissed after withdrawing their claims late in the litigation and those that were dismissed after losing the Ruling on the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of Immunity from civil liability protection afforded by the Section 230 of the CDA. It would be interesting to know if the Plaintiffs were made aware of the this personal liability in the event of defeat when agreeing to be named in a lawsuit that was clearly designed and orchestrated to advance the agenda of the CARSOL
Stay Tuned For More…