janice bellucci sham sex offender case exposed
DESCRIPTION
Janice Bellucci CA RSOL Sex Offender Attorney Janice Bellucci Fails To Respond To Her Own SHAM LawsuitFALSE CLAIMS MADE BY ATTORNEY JANICE BELLUCCI AND OTHERS EXPOSED.PRO PER Brent Oesterblad was released Sept 04 2015 from a lawsuit in federal court when Attorney JANICE BELLUCCI FAILED TO RESPOND TO HER OWN LAWSUIT AFTER 2 DEVASTATING BLOWS WERE DELIVERED TO FEDERAL COURT BY OESTERBLAD HIMSELF.Judge Bolton released Oesterblad for the SECOND TIME in 30 months. This comes on the heels of 6 convicted sex offenders and their claims were given their walking papers by Judge Bolton.The Recent Filing Below By Ex Defendant Oesterblad barely touches on all the issues however does expose dozens of blatant lies that Janice Bellucci knowingly perpetrated in this sham of a lawsuit, Attorney Janice Bellucci did not have a reasonable LEGAL OR FACTUAL BASIS to even answer the sham fraudulent lawsuit she filed herself. She simply ignored the case not to be heard from again.Janice Bellucci has REFUSED to serve the remaining summons directed at Oesterblad’s various business entities containing the same exact false allegations. (Chances seem high she will remain silent and or in hiding)The recent filing by Oesterblad requesting sealed documents seems to have a tone indicating that Janice Bellucci and possibly others may have a bumpy legal road ahead.TRANSCRIPT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Brent Oesterblad, pro per defendant20369 North 52nd AvenueGlendale, AZ [email protected]
In the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John Doe #1, et al., ) Case No.: 2:13-CV-01300-SRB )
Plaintiffs ) v. ) Previous Defendant Oesterblad’s Motion
) for Reconsideration to Receive Copies of Brent Oesterblad, et al., ) Sealed Documents Pursuant to LRCiv.
) 7.2(g)(1) Defendants ) )____________________________________) Hon. Susan Bolton
Pursuant to LRCiv. 7.2(g)(1), previous Defendant Brent Oesterblad (hereafter,
“Oesterblad) moves this Court for Reconsideration to receive copies of sealed documents that
have been filed with the Court for Case No. 2:13-CV-01300-SRB. As a former litigant, having
access to this information is imperative for Oesterblad in determining and developing the
appropriate legal remedies to address the many abuses of process and illegal conduct perpetrated
by the Plaintiffs and their Counsel during this litigation. Oesterblad is requesting the Court for
Reconsideration of its Order dated September 4, 2015 (Doc. 320) ruling that the Request to
Receive Copies of Sealed Documents filed by Oesterblad on August 31, 2015 (Doc. 319) was
“Moot”. If the Court should grant the Motion for Reconsideration, Oesterblad is requesting the
Clerk of the Court mail a copy of all sealed documents listed in this Motion to him.
///
///
///
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. LRCiv. 7.2(g)(1)
Pursuant to LRCiv. 7.2(g)(1) a litigant may request the Court for a Reconsideration when
“showing of new facts”…”that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with
reasonable diligence.” Although the case has been in litigation since March 20, 2013 (30
months), Oesterblad has never had the opportunity to challenge the factual basis of the many
allegations of the numerous plaintiffs in this case. On September 24, 2013 the Court’s Order
(Doc. 76) Dismissed Oesterblad from the Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) “for failure to properly
serve the summons and complaint” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.¹ 4(m). On September 4, 2015 the
Court’s Order (Doc. 320) once again Dismissed Oesterblad in the Third Amended Complaint
(hereafter, “TAC”) as “the Court deems Plaintiffs’ failure to serve and file the required
answering memorandum a consent to granting of Defendant Oesterblad’s Motion to Dismiss”
pursuant to LRCiv. 7.2(i). Due to the proclivity of Plaintiffs and their attorney to start a legal
action yet repeatedly refuse to meet or abide by the required dictates of the Rules or LRCiv.,
Oesterblad has been dismissed from the case by the Court before he could present the facts of
their concerted practice of presenting false testimony and fabricating erroneous allegations
against the defendants and named non-parties (while directing much negative media attention to
the plaintiffs adversaries). Oesterblad will detail the many incidences “showing new facts” that
have occurred during this case to support his allegations in the Points section (II) of this Motion.
A. Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii)
As a litigant, Oesterblad was entitled to receive copies of all documents submitted into
______________________
¹ Hereafter, the Fed. R. Civ. P. will be referred to simply as “Rule___”.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the court record pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) which states: “a copy—or a description by
category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things
that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its
claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;.” Although Oesterblad has
been dismissed from the case due to the September 4, 2015 Order (Doc. 320), there can be no
dispute that a case of such complexity, contentious litigation, length of litigation and extensive
publicity has had significant personal consequences to Oesterblad and his family. Having been a
litigant in such a case requires Oesterblad is provided the opportunity to review all documents
submitted into the courts’ record to confirm the factual validity. Oesterblad’s Motion to receive
copies of sealed documents is simply a request to have access to information that he should have
received directly from the parties submitting the documents and he had a right to review and
challenge the validity when appropriate as dictated by the precepts of the Rules and LRCiv.
B. Rule 26(c)(1)
In submitting a letter to the court and requesting a Protective Order that it be sealed
required that non-party Shirley St. James (hereafter, “St. James”) both to give notice and provide
a copy to be served upon Oesterblad pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1) which states: “The motion must
include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with
other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action.” No such attempt to
“confer” occurred. In fact, to this day Oesterblad has no idea who St. James is or what may be
her interest in the case.
If St. James had adhered to the rules in submitting her letter into the courts’ record, which
she did not, the Court had discretion to weigh the need for secrecy against the public’s right to
access. In re:Nat’l Broadcasting Co., 653 F.2d 609, 613 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“Because of the
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
difficulties inherent in formulating a broad yet clear rule to govern the variety of situations in
which the right of access must be reconciled with legitimate countervailing public and private
interests, the decision as to access is one which rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.”);
Siedle v. Putman Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998) (“The trial court enjoys considerable
leeway in making decisions of this sort.”); San Jose Mercury News v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d
1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999). Court records should be sealed to keep confidential only what must
be kept secret, temporarily or permanently as the situation requires. Clearly the Court was
authorized with a great deal of discretion in providing the protective order in sealing the letter of
St. James. Conversely the Court would be allowed discretion in granting an Order to release a
copy of the document to a party making a request with an appropriate Motion. It is no small
matter that in this incidence the movant requesting a copy of the document has been an actual
litigant that should have been provided the letter by St. James pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1) without
requiring a Motion. Also, the movant has been significantly and directly involved for over thirty
(30) months in this case, continuously dealing with erroneous allegations and claims (lies) that
were nothing more than complete fabrications. Confirming the validity of the content found in
the St. James “sealed letter” is simply exercising necessary and prudent due diligence.
II. POINTS
Based on the September 4, 2015 Order (Doc. 320) to Dismiss Oesterblad from the case
due to Plaintiffs’ “noncompliance” in answering his Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 305), it was
reasonable for the Court to also view Oesterblad’s Request for Copies of Sealed Documents
(Doc. 319) to be “Moot”. However, with all due respect to the Court, for Oesterblad the issues
surrounding any and all documents filed into the official court record for this case and their
possible continued relevance are far from being “Moot.” Considering the legal definition of
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“Moot”²; “1) unsettled, open to argument or debatable, specifically about a legal question which
has not been determined by any court; 2) an issue only of academic interest”, the Motion
represents issues that are far from “only an academic interest.” It is Oesterblad contention that
the Plaintiffs and their attorney Janice Belluci have acted in bad faith from the inception of the
litigation with the filing of the original complaint on March 20, 2013 (Doc. 1) followed with
repeated abuse of process and illegal conduct to facilitate a premeditated plan of fraudulency.
Although with the Court’s Order (Doc. 320) Oesterblad was dismissed from this case (again), it
was NOT with Prejudice. With the inclusion of Oesterblad as a defendant (again) in the TAC
after having been previously dismissed from the Amended Complaint by the Court’s September
4, 2013 Order (Doc. 76), the Plaintiffs and their attorney Janice Bellucci demonstrate they will
ignore all legal basis and factual basis, as detailed in Oesterblad’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 305),
in order to pursue an agenda of harassment utilizing the Federal Court system as their bully
pulpit to achieve nefarious objectives against pro per defendant Oesterblad and others.
In order to legally protect and defend himself and his family from further attacks by the
Plaintiffs, their legal counsel and agents acting on their behalf involving the matters associated
with this case, it is imperative Oesterblad have copies of all documents entered into the official
court record. It is Oesterblad contention that the Plaintiffs and their attorney Janice Belluci have
acted in bad faith throughout this litigation. They have engaged in pervasive misrepresentations,
deception and outright lies as evidenced in their declarations, verifications and many of the
filings. With a careful review of the court record it becomes indisputable the malfeasance
associated with the conduct of all the Plaintiffs and their attorney Janice Bellucci.
///
_____________________________ ² See, e.g., Law.com, “Moot” - http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1278
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. From the inception of the litigation Plaintiffs and their attorney have ignored
that allegations need to have a factual basis.
The deceptive practices employed by the Plaintiffs attorney Janice Bellucci can be traced
back to the first document filed, the original complaint (Doc. 1) on March 20, 2013. Although
there are numerous misrepresentation and lies found in this document, to make a coherent point
the focus will be on one particular example that is supported with indisputable evidence.
In the original Complaint it is claimed “Plaintiff John Doe #2 has requested and paid a
fee for removal of his name and photo from a privately owned website…” (Doc. 1, 3:6-7).
However, simply stated, this is a lie that is proved with irrefutable facts when reviewing a
Declaration in Support of Ex Parte for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re
Preliminary Injunction (see, Doc. 28 – 33, Oesterblad is not sure which one as the Declarations
are sealed). In the declaration signed by John Doe #2 on April 24, 2013 and submitted by the
plaintiffs attorney on April 30, 2013 it is stated: “On March 27, 2013, I requested that SOR
archives remove my name, photo, and other personal information from that website” and “On
March 27, 2013, I paid SOR archives the sum of $79 in the belief that my name, photo and other
personal information would be removed from that website” (Doc. 28-33(?), 2:¶7 & ¶9). This date
was independently confirmed with the PayPal payment occurring on March 27, 2013. The
Plaintiffs attorney Janice Bellucci filed the original Complaint (Doc. 1) on March 20, 2015
knowing the claims being made by John Doe #2 were in fact wholly without merit. The depiction
of events as stated in the Complaint had not yet occurred as witnessed in the Declaration of John
Doe #2 as contact with the website does not occur until March 27, 2013, seven days after the
filing. The point Oesterblad is making is to highlight the intentional subterfuge demonstrated by
the Plaintiffs and their attorney throughout this litigation. The very first filing of the original
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
complaint exposes the Plaintiffs attorney Janice Bellucci’s intent to ignore the most basic of
obligations when signing her name as the attorney of record in requiring truthfulness in all filings
– not to mention the multiple Rule 11 violations that her conduct represents. Basically the
Plaintiffs attorney Janice Bellucci was so desperate in trying to create a case; she felt the need to
manufacture plaintiffs with no regard or concern with the complaint having a factual basis.
B. The most significant allegations remaining of the TAC are based on complete
fabrications by the Plaintiffs and their attorney.
After the Court’s Order of June 9, 2015 (Doc. 287) in which the claims of John Does 1-6
were dismissed, there remain five (5) Plaintiffs. It was concluded “The Court will not dismiss the
claims of Plaintiffs John Doe #8, Jane Does #9-10, John Doe #11, and David Ellis under Section
230 of the CDA. The TAC alleges that these Plaintiffs have never registered as sex offenders or
been convicted of a sex-related offense (TAC ¶¶ 14-19)” (Doc. 287, 5:10-13). The Court further
determined: “Based on these allegations, the Court could reasonably conclude that Defendant
created a portion of his websites’ content by adding the personal information of those Plaintiffs
not listed on preexisting sex offender registries and misidentifying them as individuals who have
been convicted of a sex-related offense” (Doc. 287, 5:19-23). Based on the allegations of the
TAC, it would be reasonable to take these matters seriously and one justifying the necessary
legal recourse seeking retribution – if such claims were true.
In regards to Plaintiffs Jane Does #9 -10, John Doe #11 and David Ellis there is a simple
explanation why after thirty (30) months of litigation, depositions, multiple declarations,
subpoenas, thousands of pages of discovery and dozens of pages of screenshots of the websites
content the Plaintiffs have not produced one piece of evidence to substantiate the allegations that
content was published on the websites identifying them as having been charged and convicted of
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a sex offense and being required to register as a sex offender --- it NEVER happened. There were
no internally created profile pages added to the database. Oesterblad has provided a sworn
declaration addressing these issues (see Exhibit A,¶¶7,12,13,16,17 & 18). These four (4)
Plaintiffs with their attorney have collaborated to jointly fabricate this stratagem. These
allegations repeatedly presented to the Court and the media have been an egregious lie.
In the case of John Doe #8, the database of 775,000 profiles did not claim to be of
individuals required to register as Sex Offenders (which was clearly posted with the appropriate
disclaimers), but rather individuals identified as having been charged and convicted of a sex
offense such as this Plaintiff (see Exhibit A, ¶9 and Exhibit B). The TAC states John Doe #8 was
convicted “of a single count of violation of Oregon Revised Statute (“ORS”) 163.689. That
section is not a sex offense listed under ORS 181.594, subsection 4…” (Doc. 236, 6:11-13).
Although this is true, not listed under ORS 181.594 means that ORS 163.689 did not require
registration on Oregon’s Sex Offender Registry, but it most certainly was a sex offense (see
Exhibit C). Specifically, “POSSESSION OF MATERIALS DEPICTING SEXUALLY
EXPLICIT CONDUCT OF A CHILD IN THE SECOND DEGREE committed as follows: The
defendant, on or about July 6, 2006, in Lane County, Oregon, did unlawfully and knowingly
possess 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; contrary
to statute and against the peace and dignity of the State of Oregon” (see Exhibit D). For the
record, such conduct does constitute a sex offense and to state otherwise is ridiculous. This is the
type of obvious misrepresentation that is indicative of the Plaintiffs’ attorney Janice Bellucci’s
abuse of process and ignoring the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Furthermore, the profile
of John Doe #8 was NOT created by an agent of the websites, but was obtained from a third
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
party source and as such should have been dismissed with John Does 1-6 in the Court’s Order of
June 9, 2015 (Doc. 287). If the Plaintiffs’ attorney had been truthful, the Court would have
determined the data of John Doe #8 falls under the dictates of Section 230 of the CDA.
C. From the outset of the litigation the Plaintiffs and their Attorney have
knowingly misrepresented that a $79 payment was for a Profile Removal.
Throughout the exhaustive thirty (30) months of litigation a major source of frustration
for Oesterblad has been the intentional misrepresentation by the Plaintiffs in claiming they paid
$79 for a profile removal that was then not removed, thus serving as the basis for the allegation
that “extortion by theft” occurred. The Plaintiffs and their attorney are all too aware the $79 fee
paid by some of the litigants (John Does #1, #2, #3, #6 and #8) was not a removal request as
falsely alleged. It was an option made available if a party chose, not a “demand” as alleged, to
have a profile reviewed on an “expedite” basis and returned in 24 - 72 hours versus the FREE
option of 7 to 10 days. The terms of this option were made abundantly clear with unmistakable
language and appropriate disclaimers (see Exhibit E). There was no depicting this service as a
guaranteed removal option, but rather the ability for a party to challenge the validity of a profile
found in the database of 775,000 individuals charged and convicted of sex offenses. The basis
for a challenge was that the information depicted in a profile was incorrect as the charges and
conviction did NOT occur, the individual profiled had been exonerated of the charges (expunged
of the charges did NOT qualify), the individual had the conviction reversed on appeal or the
individual had received a Governors’ Pardon. After the review process was completed and it was
confirmed the challenge qualified for removal, the profile would be deleted from the database for
FREE. It was the policy of the websites that only charged and convicted individuals of sex
offenses were displayed in the database. The websites performed thousands of FREE reviews
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with only a very small percentage (2%-4%) requesting this service on an “expedite” basis
requiring the $79 fee. The Plaintiffs and their attorney have repeatedly misrepresented the actual
terms of any $79 payments made to the websites to this Court and the media as means to create a
completely erroneous depiction of events and again refusing to present their allegations on a
truthful and factual basis.
As for alleged “extortion” requiring payment for removal of content in regards to Jane
Doe #9-10, John Doe #11 and David Ellis, this is another spurious accusation. As evidenced by
the lack of one supporting document, there was never an option for these Plaintiffs to have any
alleged content removed from the websites. They did not have profiles and as such there was not
a mechanism in place to even discuss the removal of any content associated with them. There
certainly was never a discussion with these Plaintiffs about such an option (see Exhibit A, ¶14).
D. Plaintiffs’ Attorney Janice Bellucci misconduct included the harassment both
directly and indirectly of Oesterblad’s family members.
The abuse of process perpetrated by Plaintiffs’ attorney Janice Bellucci extended beyond
just Oesterblad as she also directly involved his family members with harassment. On June 19,
2013 the Plaintiffs’ Attorney submitted into the court record “Proof of Service” (Doc. 54).
However, even the most elementary examination of the Declaration of Delivery would lead an
ethical attorney to conclude that proper service had not been executed pursuant to Rule 4(e). Not
only did Plaintiffs attorney ignore the obvious deficiencies of the Declaration of Delivery, she
also ignored the letter received from attorney Paul Mattern (Doc. 75) and accompanied Affidavit
of Geraldine Mattern detailing the defects in serving the summons (Doc. 75-1). What the
Plaintiffs attorney could not have known is her scheme to push through the bogus service
involved an Arizona licensed attorney with 40 years of experience, including many years
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
working for the City of Tempe as the City Prosecutor and a Judge. Ms. Mattern immediately
recognized the significance of the fraud being committed toward the administration of the
judicial process. Faced with this Court’s recognition of the invalid service submitted to the court
record with the September 24, 2013 Order dismissing Oesterblad and the glaring evidence of the
sham Declaration of Delivery outlined by the affidavit of Ms. Mattern, the Plaintiffs’ attorney
defiantly pushed forward by having the audacity to file a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.78).
The Court also recognized the chicanery of these events and denied the motion (Doc. 80).
Beyond the legal ramification of the Plaintiffs attorneys’ misconduct, she knowingly and
improperly entered into the public record the home address of an elderly and gravely ill family
member who would be the recipient of a plethora of additional abusive harassment that has been
indicative of what Oesterblad and his family has had to endure from the Plaintiffs and their
supporters. One such example is the website Offendexortion.com owned and operated by John
Doe #5 and Jane Doe #10 allowing posts calling for raising money to directly attack Oesterblad
and his family by “order a hit” and “declare jihad upon them” (see Exhibit F). There have even
been postings on this same website with John Doe #5 actually supporting the idea of inflicting
bodily harm upon defendants in this case -- during this litigation (see Exhibit G). Another
example is Plaintiff David Ellis, a retired Marine, posting his threat online that “I am going to
skull fuck Oesterblad and Rodrick” (see Exhibit F). The harassment initiated by Plaintiffs has
been so pervasive it even required Defendant Charles Rodrick to file for an Injunction Against
Harassment against David Ellis which was granted by the Superior Court of Arizona (see Exhibit
H). These are just four (4) examples of the dozens Oesterblad has had to deal with and he must
be able to defend himself and his family against continued threats of this extreme nature from the
Plaintiffs and their supporters moving beyond this litigation.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. Plaintiffs have independent of their attorney engaged in repeated harassment
against Oesterblad and his family.
In the TAC, Jane Doe #10 claims her photo was disseminated on the websites and that
she was identified as having to register as a Sex Offender due to being charged and convicted of
a Sex Offense (Doc. 236, 7:11-19). Yet after thirty (30) months of litigation Jane Doe #10 has
not produced one piece of evidence to substantiate her allegations. Not surprising to Oesterblad
as it is an unequitable lie as no such alleged content was ever posted on the websites (see Exhibit
A, ¶16). However, as just one of many examples of the hypocrisy (and irony) of the claims of the
Plaintiffs is that it is Jane Doe #10 who has posted on her website Offendextorion.com a picture
of Oesterblad’s elderly father claiming he was convicted of numerous criminal offenses,
including child abuse (see Exhibit I). Oesterblad’s father was never charged or convicted of any
of these offenses as claimed by Jane Doe #10. When Oesterblad makes such an allegation in
Federal Court, he provides the appropriate evidence to support such a pronouncement.
On April 22, 2015 David Ellis apparently felt compelled to contact Oesterblad directly
via text messaging, clearly ignoring that direct contact was inappropriate, demanding that he be
provided Oesterblad’s address so he could deliver the “C.D.s” (Court Documents) – to serve
Oesterblad. This pattern of harassment along with the unjust naming of Oesterblad as a
Defendant in the TAC in March of 2015 was the direct cause of a close relative being admitted
into the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a local hospital where they were in serious condition for 4
days having to receive multiple blood transfusions over this time. Unlike the Plaintiffs, all of
Oesterblad’s allegations presented to this Court are very real events and supported by actual
existing documented evidence. It is critical that he has access to all documentation associated
with this litigation so that he can ensure such a travesty to his family is not repeated.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F. Plaintiffs seem to have the solipsistic belief they have some sort of impunity
when submitting false allegations and blatant misrepresentations.
In the TAC, Jane Doe #9 claims her name and photo were disseminated on the websites
and that she was identified as having to register as a Sex Offender due to being charged and
convicted of a Sex Offense (Doc. 236, 7:3-8). Yet after thirty (30) months of litigation Jane Doe
#9 has not produced one piece of evidence to substantiate her allegations. Not surprising as it is a
blatant lie as none of the alleged content was ever posted on the websites (see Exhibit A, ¶15).
Although it is unclear how postings found on the third-party website RipOffReport.com,
which is owned and operated completely independently of any litigant, has any relevance to this
case, it is referenced twice in the TAC. The TAC implies that the fact that content of personal
information involving Jane Doe #9 and her husband John Doe #4 is posted on
RipOffReport.com, it represents misconduct of the defendants. However, as is the consistent
outcome when thoroughly investigating the allegations of the TAC, they are all based on lies or
misrepresentations. What is not divulged in the TAC and its Factual Allegation is that although
there is in fact content posted on this third-party website, it is the Plaintiffs Jane Doe #9 and John
Doe #4 who originally established the posting. Any reference to these Plaintiffs is an appropriate
rebuttal to the posting THEY created. Furthermore, an apology was submitted by John Doe #4
for his actions that is also part of the posting on RipOffReport.com (see Exhibit J).
Another flagrant example of misrepresentation committed by Jane Doe#9 and John Doe
#4, with the active assistance of their attorney Janice Bellucci, is their portrayal of an official
consumer complaint with the Office of the Arizona Attorney General (see Exhibit K). Although
John Doe #4 signs the complaint as truthful “under penalty of perjury”, this does not deter him
from submitting numerous lies. He claimed the “Salesperson’s name” as Oesterblad even though
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
they never had any contact in any form; email, telephone or letter. He claimed
SORArchives.com “would assist me in cleaning up my historical legal record.” This is a
ludicrous assertion as there was never such a service offered by any of the websites in any
manner, nor does he produce any evidence to support this preposterous contention. A “historical
legal record” is not a credit report that can be “cleaned up.” Furthermore, obviously as a
consumer complaint there would need to be a transaction involving the exchange of monetary
consideration, however, contrary to this “sworn” AG complaint, the TAC, the TAC verification
and the posting on RipOffReport.com (see Exhibit J), John Doe #4 paid the website absolutely
zero dollars. This fact is evidenced by reviewing the PayPal transaction history which clearly
details the $79 being refunded to John Doe #4 after he charged back the payment for the
transaction (see Exhibit L). This is a very important fact as it contradicts the claims made by
John Doe #4 in the TAC that he “paid a fee of $79 for the removal of his name and photo from
the websites” (Doc. 236, 4:28, 5:1) and again “John Doe #4…paid a fee to the Offendex website
which they believed would lead to the removal of their names, photos and other personal
information from that website” (Doc. 236, 14:9-12). John Doe #4 did not pay the $79 fee, he lied
- repeatedly. The TAC also alleges the response made to the Office of the Arizona Attorney
General (see Exhibit M) was in violation of this Court’s Order not to reveal the identity of any
Does in this case (Doc. 236, 17:17-24). First, Oesterblad is the one who answered the complaint
in July of 2013 when he was not a litigant in this case and thus was not under any restriction in
performing the duties of his job to the best of his ability (see Exhibit A, ¶3). The response was
factual and was addressing the false, yet serious accusations initiated by John Doe #4. Second,
not only did John Doe #4 inappropriately reference the Federal lawsuit, he also identified
HIMSELF in the complaint – a public record. On the second page of the complaint he checks a
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
box and identifies himself as a “Federal Case co-plaintiff” (see exhibit K). Again, the Plaintiffs’
attorney operates under an assumption her clients can post content on websites and take no
responsibility, file complaints with official Government Agencies while restricting the
defendants from properly defending themselves from false accusations and lies and they initiate
a Federal lawsuit without taking into consideration the fundamental requirement of providing the
truth and that their claims must have a legal and factual basis in order to prevail.
The perception of the Plaintiffs and their attorney throughout this litigation has been they
are entitled to post and/or file various unfounded accusations with immunity on websites, with
Government Agencies or courts and their opposition is barred from any form of counterargument
or defense. An interesting consideration is just as the Court could not dismiss the remaining
Plaintiffs as the allegations of the TAC if true would represent outrageous conduct in character
and extreme in degree, conversely is knowingly falsely accusing someone of such conduct
equally outrageous and extreme in degree. What is the level of appropriate scorn and ridicule
deserved by the Plaintiffs and their attorney Janice Bellucci when it is finally confirmed that all
of these allegations were fabricated against the defendants and there was no legal or factual basis
for the lawsuit. It was a charade. This litigation has been a conspiracy of lies and
misrepresentations perpetrated by twelve (12) Plaintiffs and an attorney pursuing an agenda to
further a zealot agenda of her organization California Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL),
dedicated to restricting the civil rights, such as the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, of any
person or business enterprise deemed a threat to inform the general public with factual public
records of the truth concerning convicted sex offenders. These people were not victims, but once
again the perpetrators. Will the outrage be as robust and vitriolic as that which has been endured
by Oesterblad and his family? Having all documents is a necessary defense against such villainy.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUESTED DOCUMENTS
A. Sealed Letter From Shirley St. James – Doc. 316
On July 31, 2015 a “sealed letter” from Shirley St. James was entered into the official
Court’s Record – Document 316. Sealed Letter (Dated 7/21/15) from Shirley St. James. (MAP)
(Entered: 08/03/2015). Oesterblad is requesting that a copy of this document be sent to him by
the Clerk of the Court.
B. Sealed Verifications to Third Amended Complaint – Doc. 240
On March 4, 2015, Document 240, “Sealed Verifications to Third Amended Complaint
237 Filed by Jane Doe #9, Jane Doe #10, John Doe, John Doe, John Doe, John Doe, John Doe,
John Doe #5, John Doe#8, John Doe#, David Ellis. (Bellucci, Janice) (MAP) (Entered:
03/04/2015). Sealed Verifications for the Third Amended Complaint” were filed with the Court
by Plaintiffs attorney Janice Bellucci and were entered into the official Court’s Record –
Document 240. Oesterblad is requesting that a copy of documents 240 be sent to him by the
Clerk of the Court.
C. Sealed Declarations – Doc. 46 and Doc. 47
On June 4, 2014 two (2) “sealed declarations” were filed – Documents 46 and 47.
SEALED DOCUMENT-DECLARATION re: MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and
Improper Venue 24 filed. (mrgo) Modified on 6/7/2013 (mrgo). (Entered: 06/06/2013).
Oesterblad is requesting that a copy of these documents be sent to him by the Clerk of the Court.
D. Sealed Declarations – Doc. 28, Doc. 29, Doc. 30, Doc. 31, Doc. 32 & Doc. 33
On April 30, 2013 six (6) “sealed declarations” were entered into the official Court’s
Record – Documents 28 - 33. SEALED DOCUMENT: DECLARATION of DOE PLAINTIFF
IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION 19 (am) [Transferred
from cacd on 6/28/2013.] (Entered: 05/02/2013). Oesterblad is requesting that a copy of these
documents be sent to him by the Clerk of the Court.
III. CONCLUSION
As set forth in this Motion, Oesterblad is requesting this Court to allow him to receive
copies of all sealed documents that have been entered into the courts’ record of Case No. 2:13-
CV-01300-SRB. As a previous litigant who has endured thirty (30) months of a multitude of
false allegations by the plaintiffs and repeated abusive legal tactics by the plaintiffs’ attorney
Janice Bellucci, Oesterblad has the right to assess the validity and factual substance of all
documents entered into the official court record that has so significantly impacted his life and
that of his family. It was reasonable for the Court to assume the Request for Copies of Sealed
Documents as being “Moot” upon the Courts’ September 4, 2015 Order (Doc. 320) to Dismiss
Oesterblad from this case (again). However, the Dismissal was not designated as being with
Prejudice nor could the Court know the extent to which the Plaintiffs and their Counsel have
abused the judicial process, provided false testimony and blatantly fabricated many of their
claims. The “showing of new facts” (many) justifies the Motion for Reconsideration. In order to
legally protect and defend himself and his family from further attacks by the plaintiffs, their legal
counsel and agents acting on their behalf involving the matters associated with this case, it is
essential Oesterblad has copies of all documents entered into the official court record.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of September, 2015.
By: ____________________Brent Oesterblad, pro per defendant20369 North 52nd AvenueGlendale, AZ [email protected]
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
ORIGINAL of the foregoing filed this 16th day of September, 2015, to:
Clerk of the CourtUnited States District Court, District of Arizona401 W. Washington StreetPhoenix, AZ 85003-2243
ORIGINAL of the foregoing was emailed this 16th day of September, 2015, to:
Michael Harnden, Esq.Law Ofc. Of Barry Rorex PLC177 North Church, Suite 1100Tucson, AZ [email protected] Attorney for Defendant Charles Rodrick
Janice Bellucci, Esq.Law Ofc. Of Janice M. Bellucci235 East Clark Avenue, Suite CSanta Maria, CA [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs
E. Keith JohnsonPO Box 5901Johnson City, TN [email protected] Per Plaintiff
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Arizona that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 16th day of September 2015, in Glendale, Arizona.
By: _________________________Brent Oesterblad, pro per defendant20369 North 52nd AvenueGlendale, AZ [email protected]
18