Charles Rodrick Arraigned Today in Arizona Court


Charles Rodrick, who charged registrants up to $500 to have their personal information removed from websites he created, was arraigned today in Arizona.  During today’s arraignment, Rodrick entered a plea of not guilty to all charges for which he has been indicted.  Rodrick is scheduled to return to court on June 8 for a pretrial conference.  Because Rodrick posted bond, he is living in the community and wearing a GPS tracking device.

In addition to Rodrick, two of his colleagues — Brent Oesterblad and Sarah Shea — have also been indicted on similar criminal charges.  Oesterlad and Shea are scheduled for arraignment on April 27 in the same Arizona court.  A trial in this matter is scheduled for September 9, 2021.

Restitution may be available to those who paid for removal of their personal information from Rodrick’s websites as well as to others he harmed financially or otherwise.  Information regarding how to file for restitution can be found at

Indictment – Rodrick – 2021  PDF  Download

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thank you for this link. Consider its use in the context of an FTR defense.
Q: Agent what is the purpose of the information demanded by sex offender registration form?
A: We collect it for reasons as described in law.
Q: Is that all the people use the registry for lawful purposes?
A: Yes, that is why it is done.
Q In your experience as an agent have you encountered an instance of unlawful use of registry information.

I’m watching this case closely. Thanks for sharing this information.

If anything, this case should expose the controversial aspects of the registry and it’s sub-coded punitive nature. If it WERE a legitimate “public safety” law, all of these subsequent and opportunistic third-parties would have no need to exist if there were NO money to be made from the embarrassment and shame relief if it wasn’t PUNITIVE in the first place!

Make no mistake, Megan’s law IS punitive, vindictive and retaliatory in nature and scope.

Wow I googled my name and nothing pops up anymore i guess those website aren’t as cocky and bold as they used to be back in the early 2000s.

Thanks Janice and ACSOL i give you guys mad props for this one good job team 💪😊

Would OffenderWatch be one of those that seek money from the civil club members? Those that scam people out of money from their pasts, must have some of skeletons in their closet and be miserable people to be around.

Once upon a time, DMV records were publicly accessible by anyone in CA, until actress Rebecca Schaeffer was murdered in 1967. Perhaps, we need a celebrity “sacrificial lamb,” to shutdown free access to the registry???

Restitution MAY be available. After his lawyer gets his money and the courts get their money, if any left, everyone will have to file a civil suit and wait for 8 yrs while the system drags along at its usual snail with a broken leg pace. Write it off as lesson learned and move on.

Does anyone know if this trial is over and what the outcome is?