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 85308480-967-6555pv5601@gmail.com

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 85308480-967-6555pv5601@gmail.com

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 85701mike@rorexlaw.com Attorney for Defendant Charles Rodrick

Janice Bellucci, Esq.Law Ofc. Of Janice M. Bellucci235 East Clark Avenue, Suite CSanta Maria, CA 93455JMBellucci@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiffs

E. Keith JohnsonPO Box 5901Johnson City, TN 37601ekeithjohnson@gmail.comPro 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 85308480-967-6555pv5601@gmail.com

18