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
April 20 2017
DANIEL WARNER SCAM EXPOSED BY WASHINGTON POST
Previous stories about Arizona Attorney Daniel R Warner in the past have gone ignored but now we have a Respected law Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law doing the investigating and making some real progress in exposing Dan Warner and his partner Arron Kelly of Kellywarnerlaw.com law firm located in Scottsdale Arizona. Attorney Dan Warner is accused of fake lawsuits fake signatures, fake notarized documents and even using dead people as fake defendants in order to obtain fake judgments. More To Come
All documents are currently being gathered to be examined by a handwriting expert with a professional opinion Stay Tuned..
If you have had dealings with Dan Warner Aaron Kelly Or Kelly Warner Law related to similar content below email us Courtkeymail@gmail.com
AZ LAW FIRM MAKES BIG BUSINESS OF FILING FAKE LAWSUITS
Local attorneys, Daniel Warner & Aaron Kelly of Kelly/Warner Law in AZ, (8283 N. Hayden Road, Suite 229, Scottsdale, AZ 85259 – (480) 588-0449 kellywarnerlaw.com), are presently the target of an investigation from Arizona State Bar Association, FBI and AZ Attorney General and various news outlets such as Washington Post USA Herald, Additional outlets such us CBS 5 AZ FOX 10 3 TV ABC 15 NBC 12 AZ Rep Phoenix New Times FOX News Nationwide NY Times CNN HUFF POST MSNBC ABC USA TODAY CrimeWatch.com 20/20, 60 Minutes have all been notified. Media Interview and document requests can be requested here. Courtkeymail@gmail.com
The Kelly/Warner Law Firm of Scottsdale, AZ, has been accused of actively perpetrating fraudulent lawsuits, suing non-existent defendants and forging official Notary Public stamps and signatures illegally. In their scheme, charging their clients big dollars, Kelly/Warner’s goal was to scrub negative information about their clients from the Internet.
This story came to light after diligent and thorough investigations by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh of The Washington Post, attorney Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen Litigation Group and The USA Herald.
The lawsuits, filed by attorneys Daniel Warner & Aaron Kelly, appear to have the following characteristics:
- · False fabricated claims and allegations
- · Fake non existent Plaintiffs in some of the lawsuits
- · Fake non existent Defendants, all representing themselves pro se, for the purpose of a forged confession to show a judge (in one case the ‘fake Defendant’ appears to be a boy that died of leukemia in 2014).
- · Fake and forged Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s signatures
- · Fake notary stamps using photo shop type programs and and forged notary signatures
- · The lawsuit’s purpose was to fool the courts into issuing judgments
Please read the following to shed light on the back-story and ongoing investigation:
In addition, the history of previous and ongoing legal battles, this article provides valuable insight and information:
- Information Sources US HERALDhttp://usaherald.com/arizona-attorney-daniel-warner-investigation-alleged-legal-fraud/
- Printer Friendly US HERALD ARTICLE(THIS ARTICLE IS MORE IN DEPTH)
- Information Sources Washington Posthttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/30/libel-takedown-injunctions-and-fake-notarizations/?utm_term=.08640e465c75
- Printer Friendly
This is believed to be the source of the Colorado Samantha Pierce FAKE NOTARY STAMP used in the Daniel Warner FAKE LAWSUITS In fact, the Notary ID 20121234567 with the expiration date of August 8, 2016 was likely pulled from the Colorado Secretary of State website where it is used as an explanation to notaries as to how they should format their seals.Photo Shop was used to add the illegal name.. ACCORDING TO THE INVESTIGATOR THE DEFENDANT NOR THE NOTARY EXIST.
This is believed to be the source of the Georgia Amanda Sparks FAKE NOTARY STAMP used in the Daniel Warner FAKE LAWSUITS Same as the example on the website. Photo Shop is also a possibility. This is believed to be the source of the Georgia Amanda Sparks FAKE NOTARY STAMP used in the Daniel Warner FAKE LAWSUITS ACCORDING TO THE INVESTIGATOR THE DEFENDANT NOR THE NOTARY EXIST.
DAN WARNER OF KELLYWARNER LAW IN SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA IS CAUGHT IN FRAUDULENT FILINGS
It was always just a matter of time for Dan Warner to be exposed for the corrupt attorney that he has always been in his practice at Kelly/Warner Law firm in Scottsdale, Arizona. In meeting Dan Warner it becomes obvious early on that he is neither a skilled attorney nor that bright of an individual. Although you wouldn’t know this based on his own self-importance, what he lacks in skill and intelligence he attempts to make up with a huge unjustified ego. When dealing with such a lawyer at anytime, the best course of action is to immediately RUN for the nearest exit. He is trouble and you know it in a minute.
THE DAN WARNER LEGAL SCAM
It was NOT a surprise that Dan Warner and his law firm have been exposed engaging in fraudulent activities in filing completely false and fabricated lawsuits. Simply put – it is a total scam based on a reputation repair services promising to remove negative content being disseminating online that can greatly affect a person’s personal or business affairs. This has become a burgeoning legal business as negative reviews being discovered on the Internet can destroy a reputation and/or business overnight. The Dan Warner angle to charge his clients enormous legal fees is to file completely FAKE lawsuits against non-existent people. Here is how the scam works:
- Bad and/or negative posting are easily found online on such websites as RipOffReport.com. The website ROR being one that does NOT remove postings even when the party that made the posting requests them to do so. They don’t care. It can be quite a task to get postings to go away.
- What do you do? The Warner answer is to sue… someone…anyone…. Actually, no one.
- The foundation and basic premise of this strategy is based on the fact lawsuits can be very time consuming and costly. Plus, there is no assurance you will prevail. This is especially true when the original party who posted the negative comments is steadfast in defending their right to express their opinions. This right strongly protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment, the Right to Freedom of Speech. They are justified in expressing their honest opinion in whatever postings they may choose to author. It can be VERY difficult to win this type of lawsuit.
- The Dan Warner solution (Scam) is to sue someone that doesn’t exist. In this way there is no one to object to the claims of the lawsuit and a victory by default is likely assured.
- The Dan Warner solution (Scam) also has an advanced scheme to move this strategy along even more efficiently as the judicial process can still move forward at a seemingly glazier pace. Warner’s twist is to create a fake Defendant to “accept” a settlement for the lawsuit that is to AGREE to an injunction that labels targeted content libelous. This “settlement” will move quickly through the judicial system as it appears to the Court that the parties are in agreement. There is no reason for pushback by the Court to clear cases off its docket when it APPEARS the parties are in agreement resolving the matter without further litigation. Apparently a win- win-win scenario.
- In order to make the case move forward with this type of court filings it sometimes requires the named parties, Plaintiffs and/or Defendants, to sign court documents and the signature requires verification by a notary. That is cause for a problem when you are dealing with people who do not exist. The Warner solution; have the fake tools to create forged notary stamps for non-existent notaries. Why not? Fake Defendants – sometimes fake Plaintiffs – why not a fake notary?
- With all the legal paper work appearing to be properly in place, a Judge will naturally sign off on the “agreement” that is an Injunction that identifies the links to the content being targeted for removal. A Court ORDER is issued identifying the content as libelous and subject to removal.
- The websites hosting the content targeted may or may not honor the Court’s ORDER; it depends on a wide range of legal issues and many specifics variables associated with the website involved.
- However, it does not really matter what a website does, the objective was always to get the Court ORDER to present to Google. With the Court Order, Google will DEINDEX the content and thus in reality, makes it virtually impossible for the targeted content to be found as a search result. It is still there on the Internet, but the likelihood that this content will be found by anyone searching for results is so miniscule that it effectively can be said it has vanished (the number associated with a link being clicked when it does not appear in the first 20 pages of Google search results is in the ONE in MILLIONS). There you go – the Dan Warner reputation repair.
- NOTE AT THIS POINT: The fact is the party who posted the content in question would be completely unaware that such legal maneuvers had even occurred in some unknown courtroom.
IS THIS A SOLID AND/OR CLEVER LEGAL SCHEME TO TAKE CONTROL OF ONE’S ONLINE REPUTATION?
The basic problem with the Dan Warner solution (scam) is that all the variables needed to achieve any of the scenarios described is that it amounts to a house of cards that constitutes FRAUD. It is an ILLEGAL scheme. Once the Dan Warner so-called solution (scam) for costly online reputation repair is exposed for the fraudulence it represents, the entire scheme crumbles with possible serious legal ramification for the customer paying for the service of removal. The possible legal ramifications are serious.
THIS LEGAL SCAM OF DAN WARNER AND THE KELLY/WARNER LAW FIRM HAS BEEN EXPOSED
Respected law Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law began investigating this new legal strategy beginning to show up in courtrooms. He posted his finding on his blog The Volokh Conspiracy disseminated by the prestigious media giant WashingtonPost.com.
The research and work of Professor Volokh was expanded upon by the folks at USA Herald who have provided an in depth breakdown of exactly what constitutes the legal mechanics of the Warner Scam.
The excellent work of both Professor Volokh and the USA Herald provides specific examples with all the accompany documentation to PROVE what has been perpetrated by Dan Warner and his Kelly/Warner Law firm. To their detriment, once their fraudulence was discovered, ALL the legal filings in the courts can be easily retrieved as they are PUBLIC RECORDS. ALL the nasty details can be exposed as to exactly the why, what, where, when and who was involved in the FRAUDULENT scheme. The most damaging evidence that was too very easy to track down and expose which were the FAKE notaries. The articles posted by Professor Volokh and USA Herald provide the obviously named FAKE notaries claiming to be in a number of different states such as Colorado, Georgia, Florida and Texas. A simple check with those states and it was quickly ascertained the names of the supposed notaries did NOT exist and the stamps submitted with the court filings had been forged. OOPS! “Houston we have a problem.”
DOES DAN WARNER AND THE KELLY/WARNER LAW FIRM HAVE CRIMINAL LIABILITY?
What are the possible consequences for Dan Warner and his partner Aaron Kelly for perpetrating this legal scheme based on FAKE Defendants – FAKE Plaintiffs – FAKE Notaries – making false and fabricated filings with fraudulent intent with the courts? It is a PROBLEM. Criminal charges are always a complex matter requiring a thorough investigation by the proper law enforcement agencies to determine exactly who was involved in engaging in exactly what conduct that may be an issue. At this time we will have to wait and see how this fiasco of a mess shakes out. We can report that there is a high interest in getting to the FACTS of what has occurred by seriously interested law enforcement authorities.
DAN WARNER AGAIN TRIES TO VICTIMIZE CHARLES RODRICK BY ATTEMPTING TO SILENCE THE TRUTH
A nice breakdown of the example lawsuit is provided by the USA Herald that they identified as “the most egregious lawsuit of the bunch” being “Lawsuit 4 – Ruddie v. Kirschner.” This Dan Warner lawsuit involves a Plaintiff that is a real person, although he is the Dan Warner business associate Richart Ruddie claiming to be a victim of libelous content found on RipOffReport.com. The first significant standout issue is the content being targeted is about DAN WARNER himself, a factually accurate and truthful account of Charles Rodrick dealings with Dan Warner and the Kelley/Warner Law Firm. The second issue is the Defendant Kirschner is FAKE. The notary is FAKE. The lawsuit is FAKE. Yet, it was successful in getting the negative content naming DAN WARNER on the RipOffReport.com to be redacted, thus making it effectively meaningless. What becomes interesting beside the obvious fraudulent manipulation of the judicial system to perpetrate this scheme that has been so thoroughly exposed by Professor Volokh and USA Herald, is the fraudulent elimination of perfectly legal opinions being expressed online a violation of a person’s U.S. Constitution protected rights? Specifically, the First Amendment guaranteeing a citizen’s right to Freedom of Speech unencumbered. Yes, it most certainly is and this is the discussion that is presently being reviewed by a few different Arizona law enforcement agencies. We are looking forward to providing updates on this very fluid situation that is being actively investigated.
Other relevant information for those interested:
- Who is Richart Ruddie? A real sweetheart: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=richart+ruddie
- Does this scam reach the level of criminal conduct? Maybe: http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/forgery-laws-arizona.htm
- What are the penalties for forging notary stamps when filing official documents – such as court filings? Harsh: https://www.nationalnotary.org/notary-bulletin/blog/2014/06/forged-notary-seals-longer-prison-sentence
- How do you come up with the idea of creating FAKE notaries? Shockingly, it is easily available online: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=forged+notary+stamp
BTW: The other partner Aaron Kelly was also exposed engaging in the same exact scam. OOPS. So will the Kelly/Warner Law Firm be soon posting a banner on their website and a sign on their office door?:
“OUT TO LUNCH. BE BACK IN 2 – 3 YEARS” ??!!
According to Rick DeBruhl, Chief Communications Officer of the State Bar of Arizona, Attorney Daniel Warner is currently under investigation by the Arizona Bar. The Arizona Bar is also considering whether to launch an investigation on Warner’s partner, Attorney Aaron Kelly, in which we will cover in a follow-up story.
This investigation may have been prompted by a formal complaint filed by Eugene Volokh, a frequent contributor to the Washington Post.
In an article published recently in the Washington Post, Volokh describes how Attorney Daniel Warner and his partner Aaron Kelly have engaged in litigation that seems to be fraudulent. The purpose of the lawsuits? To “trick” Google into removing negative articles and comments from their search results about people accused of very serious crimes and other misdeeds.
Eugene Volokh wrote an article last year describing how certain lawyers and their clients are using less-than-legal methods to remove damaging information from Google’s search results. As a result of his discoveries, he began investigating Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly’s connections to alleged court fraudster Richart Ruddie, publishing his findings here.
We are going to break down the details of the alleged fraud that has taken place here, and will dig a little deeper into a few connections that were not fully made in the Washington Post article.
Let’s start with Aaron Kelly and Daniel Warner. These two, through their firm Kelly/Warner Internet Law, specialize in “internet defamation law and reputation management.”
On their website, KellyWarnerLaw.com, they state:
“As one of the first firms to concentrate on Internet reputation legalities, Kelly / Warner has assisted hundreds of businesses and individuals with various online defamation challenges. We represent businesses, professionals, and persons who’ve been unfairly disparaged online.”
On their website, they also mention that the truthfulness of the “defamation” is not always important. “You’ve heard the saying: ‘it’s not defamation if it is true.’ And yes, for the vast majority of slander and libel lawsuits, this adage holds true – but not always.”
It would be hard to dispute that both Warner and Kelly advertise themselves as experts at internet defamation. They imply as much and claim to know exactly what processes to take when removing content from Google.
“We know how to get disparaging, negative comments removed from the Web – quickly.” – Daniel Warner & Aaron Kelly
The rapid way that information is shared, re-shared, and spun across the internet has resulted in the rise of attorneys that specialize in “removals” of internet defamation from Google. The services provided by these law firms has become more important than ever to large corporations and public figures.
We published an article earlier this year discussing Yelp’s fight to protect themselves and consumers from being muscled around by these firms. Indeed, it has become much more difficult to get negative content removed from the internet. These days, internet defamation attorneys have to take a different approach to remove this content. How do they do this?
According to InternetLiveStats.com:
“Google now processes over 40,000 search queries every second on average, which translates to over 3.5 billion searches per day and 1.2 trillion searches per year worldwide.”
Billions of users each day begin their search for information on Google, so many attorneys have begun focusing on removing content from Google rather than taking down the original source, reducing the majority of negative exposure to damaging content.
Law firms do this by filing an injunction on the creator of the content for libel or defamation. If the court files an injunction order, Google will, in most cases, de-index the content from being found on their search engines.
According to Volokh’s article, “…one danger with this practice, as we’ve seen, is that it leads to an incentive for unscrupulous people — whether plaintiffs, their lawyers or reputation-management companies hired by the plaintiffs (and potentially working out the details without the plaintiffs or the lawyers’ knowledge) — to file lawsuits against fake defendants.”
Volokh, a UCLA Law Professor, in his research, found multiple lawsuits that were filed by Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly that appear to have fake, non-existent defendants & have fake notarizations. Let’s take a look at these suits:
Lawsuit 1 – Chinnock v. Ivanski
Joseph Chinnock, AKA Joel Cassaway, hired Attorney Warner to deindex (remove) 39 website listings from Google that cast him as a scam artist that harmed multiple people over a span of several years.
Attorney Warner then filed a lawsuit against a person located in Turkey named “Krista Ivanski.” The lawsuit claimed that Krista Ivanski was responsible for publishing all 39 of the different “defamatory website listings” across websites like RipOffReport, Scam Exposure, USA Complaints, and more.
This is a highly improbable scenerio that someone named “Krisa Ivanski” from Turkey wrote all 39 of the different complaints across many unique websites over a 5+ year period…rather the links appear to have clearly been written by different people over that 5+ year time frame that were all harmed by Chinnock from a multitude of different experiences, some of which resulted in real litigation.
In addition to the fact that the alleged defendant is from Turkey, left no address of record, and appeared pro se. Ivanski was also willing to admit to the liability just shortly after the lawsuit was served.
Kristin Ivanski appears to be a non-existent person that was contrived for the sole purpose of removing the negative information online about Joseph Chinnock.
Just as alarming, it appears as if the notary for Attorney Warner’s lawsuit is fake as well. There is no “Samantha Pierce” registered as a notary public in the State of Colorado and the Notary ID used is 20121234567. No such seal or notary exists in Colorado.
In fact, the Notary ID 20121234567 with the expiration date of August 8, 2016 was likely pulled from the Colorado Secretary of State website where it is used as an explanation to notaries as to how they should format their seals.
Digging deeper, we noticed that Krista Ivanski and Samantha Pierce have signatures that are strikingly similar, one significant similarity being the very distinguishable way that the “i” is dotted.
On a motion filed earlier in the case by Attorney Warner, the Notary is “Amanda Sparks of Fulton County,” but, once again, there is no Amanda Sparks in Fulton County. Volokh notes in his article that there is an Amanda Sparks in a different county with a different expiration date. So, it appears that the real Amanda Sparks may be a victim of identity theft.
In the image below, it appears that the handwriting for the “Amanda Sparks” notarization was also the same as that used for “Krista Ivanski” & “Samantha Pierce.”
In summation, this lawsuit, filed by Attorney Daniel Warner, appears to have the following characteristics:
- Fake signatures
- Fake notaries
- Fake defendant, representing herself pro se
- Purpose was to remove negative material from Google
Lawsuit 2 – Lynd v. Hood
Adam David Lynd of Lynd Company, Inc. hired Daniel Warner & Aaron Kelly to deindex multiple RipOffReport listings that portrayed Lynd as a scam “artist.”
One of the RipOffReports was written by someone named John Duran, http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/david-lynd/san-antonio-texas/david-lynd-lynd-company-lynd-world-lynd-ripoff-report-warns-of-perceived-questionable-co-1151560, a real person. In fact, in the rebuttal on the RipOffReport, Adam David Lynd responded to John Duran acknowledging that he and Lynd were “engaged” in business together, which is key: If the actual author of the RipOffReport post, John Duran, was known to Lynd, Attorney Warner and Attorney Kelly should have known better than to name someone else as the defendant in the lawsuit:
The lawsuit Attorney Warner and Attorney Kelly filed didn’t name John Duran as the defendant in light of the evidence that was available to them at the time, rather it named “Connie Hood” & “Jesse Wood” as the defendants: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2017/03/LyndvHoodOrder.pdf.
On further investigation, it appears that neither Connie Hood nor Jesse Wood exist, strikingly similar to the defendants in the first lawsuit we discussed.
The notary listed on this lawsuit, Jose Garcia from Harris County, Texas, is, predictably, non-existent as well. There are two Jose Garcias from Harris County listed on the Texas notary website, but neither had an expiration date of March 2, 2016, which leads us to wonder who truly “notarized” this document.
Upon comparing the signatures and dates on these documents by the notary to the other documents, there are, again, notable similarities:
This lawsuit filed by Attorney Daniel Warner & Attorney Aaron Kelly appears to have the following characteristics:
- Fake signatures
- Fake notaries
- Fake defendants representing themselves pro se
- Purpose was to remove negative material from Google
- Similar handwriting to other lawsuits filed by Attorney Warner
Lawsuit 3 – Gottuso v. Marks
In this lawsuit, the same pattern is followed as the first 2 except it was filed by Aaron Kelly, Daniel Warner’s law partner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2017/03/GottusovMarksOrder.pdf
- Fake defendant representing himself pro se
- Purpose was to remove negative material from Google
- RipOffReport.com is deindexed
Lawsuit 4 – Ruddie v. Kirschner
This is, if fraudulent, the most egregious lawsuit of the bunch. Here, Attorney Daniel Warner appears to have orchestrated a fraudulent legal scheme to have a RipOffReport published about him removed from Google. This RipOffReport written about Attorney Warner is likely written by his aggrieved former client, Charles Rodrick. Though the website has heavily redacted the report, you can find the previous version here.
The Arizona Republic covered Rodrick’s grievances in depth.
“Daniel Warner, who has been called as a witness in the federal case and testified Wednesday, said Rodrick filed a complaint with the State Bar of Arizona alleging misconduct after Warner withdrew from the case.
Rodrick accused Warner of violating several professional rules, including fraudulent billing, conflict of interest and revealing privileged attorney-client information through an article on the firm’s blog last year with the headline, “Two men, one extortion racket website?”
Rodrick even went so far as to file a bar complaint.
Considering the likelihood that Charles Roderick wrote the RipOffReport, Attorney Warner’s subsequent actions are puzzling, at best.
Attorney Daniel Warner’s friend and colleague, Richart Ruddie, whom Warner has a relationship with and has worked with on multiple occasions, appears to have filed a fake lawsuit to deindex the RipOffReport. NOTE: Kelly Warner represented Richart Ruddie in the Walters v. Coopers Picks LLC case where Richart Ruddie was sued for Conspiracy and Deceptive Trade Practices.
In what appears as an attempt to hide Richart Ruddie’s identity, Ruddie filed a lawsuit listing his name as “R. Derek Ruddie” against another seemingly fake defendant named “Jake Kirschner” that chose to represent himself pro se.
“R. Derek Ruddie” AKA “Richart Derek Ruddie” claims that “Defendant Kirschner (Defendant) posted false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff Ruddie (Plaintiff) here.
Interestingly, R. Derek Ruddie (Richart Ruddie) is not mentioned one single time in the RipOffReport listing about Daniel Warner. Yet, Ruddie claims in his lawsuit that he was “harmed” by the RipOffReport about Daniel Warner.
Considering the history that Daniel Warner and Richart Ruddie have together, and Warner’s history of similar lawsuits that appear to have fraudulent elements, it would seem that Attorney Warner, the true beneficiary of this filing, may have played a role in this suit as well.
This lawsuit filed by Richart Ruddie with the ultimate beneficiary being Daniel Warner appears to have the following characteristics:
- Fake defendant representing herself pro se
- False assertions
- Purpose was to remove negative material from Google.
This is not Daniel Warner’s first time attempting to de-index the listing.
In fact, on June 23, 2015, less than 5 months before Richart Ruddie filed the lawsuit, it appears that Attorney Warner attempted to take down the RipOffReport listing by claiming that the picture listed on the report violated his copyright because it was taken from LinkedIn.
Eugene Volokh points out in his Washington Post article:
“The private investigator who has been helping me (Giles Miller of Lynx Insights & Investigations) couldn’t find the ostensible Lynd v. Hood defendants, Connie Hood and Jesse Wood, at the addresses given for them; nor could he find any evidence of the existence of Krista Ivanski, of Chinnock v. Ivanski; nor could he find Jake Kirschner, the ostensible defendant in Ruddie v. Kirschner, the case aimed at deindexing a RipOffReport post about Daniel Warner; nor Howard Marks, the defendant in Gottuso v. Marks, another Kelly/Warner case (though one without a notarization).”
Indeed, true to their word, Attorney Daniel Warner and Attorney Aaron Kelly “know how to get disparaging, negative comments removed from the Web –quickly.”
We have attempted to contact Kelly/Warner Law for comment, but our calls have gone unanswered, and (strangely) the line does not have a voicemail box.
A special thanks to Eugene Volokh on his research firstname.lastname@example.org 310-206-3926
This is the first article of a series of articles on this story. We expect Attorney Warner to have action taken against him soon and likely Attorney Aaron Kelly to follow. If you have a tip please email us at Admin@USAHerald.com and contact the investigator assigned to Daniel Warner’s case:
Bradley Perry, Bar Counsel
4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100 | Phoenix, AZ 85016-6266
T : 602.340.7247 F : 602.416.7473
Rodrick vs Galvez WASHINGTON CASE HEADED TO FEDERAL COURT
Jurisdiction and other technical issues heard today by a Washington Court Judge. The judge ruled on the various issues including jurisdiction and released the defendants in the WA matter. The judge did however clear the path and ruled allowing a new case to be refiled. The new lawsuit naming at least 12 defendants is now cleared to to be filed in Fed Court. Service of the defendants will begin in the upcoming weeks. Details Soon Stay Tuned..
THE TRUTH WILL EVENTUALLY PREVAIL
OTHER LAWSUIT UPDATES
Las Vegas Convicted Sex Offender Andre Wilson Fake Fabricated Claims Backfire.
CHUCK RODRICK WINS ANTI-SLAPP SUIT IN NEVADA AGAINST CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER ANDRE WILSON.
In a last ditch effort Andre Wilson of Las Vegas and his lawyers attempted to discredit the current Judge that presided over the case for well over a year by filing for emergency review with the Supreme Court Of Nevada where 6 judges saw through the nonsense and all ruled in favor of Rodrick.
Andre Wilson of Las Vegas Nevada filed a frivolous lawsuit in Nevada in an attempt to get his past Sex Offender conviction record removed from the internet claiming it was created only to harass and that it never occurred. More conviction records have surfaced for similar crimes making his false fabricated claims even that much more egregious. The damages are expected to be ruled on soon. A follow up lawsuit for punitive damages (allowed by Nevada Law) is pending.
Andre Wilson admitted in a phone call. “I need special security clearance & licenses for my work and would get fired if they found out I am a felon and convicted sex offender”.
Stay Tuned For The Full Extensive Story…
DEPOSITION OF JANINE GRAVES 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”
LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST DANIEL VANWAES & JENNIFER VANWAES
DANIEL VAN WAES SERVED KING COUNTY CASE (Jurisdiction Change Pending)
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 (Jurisdiction Change Pending)
DANIEL VAN WAES SERVED KING COUNTY CASE (Jurisdiction Change Pending)
EDWIN KEITH JOHNSON SERVED KING COUNTY CASE (Jurisdiction Change Pending)
GLENN WYRICK SERVED In Case KING COUNTY CASE (Jurisdiction Change Pending)
NICHOLAS MAIETTA SERVED In Case KING COUNTY CASE (Jurisdiction Change Pending)
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
LAWSUIT PENDING AGAINST JANICE BELLUCCI May/June 2017
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 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
FEDERAL LAWSUIT PENDING
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..
FEDERAL LAWSUIT PENDING
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..
FEDERAL LAWSUIT PENDING
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..
FEDERAL LAWSUIT PENDING
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
FEDERAL LAWSUIT PENDING
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
FEDERAL LAWSUIT PENDING
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..
FEDERAL LAWSUIT PENDING
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..
FEDERAL LAWSUIT PENDING
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 email@example.com 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
FEDERAL LAWSUIT PENDINGJane 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”
FEDERAL LAWSUIT PENDING
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.
GLENN WYRICK APOLOGY EMAIL JUST DAYS BEFORE THE TRIAL
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…