Complaint Review: SORARCHIVES.COM - Phoenix AZ 85086 Internet

 If sorarchives.com were truly concerned with the actual truth, then they would do the due diligence and update their database to reflect true and accurate records.

This is in response to Arizona Attorney General Complaint Received By July 22  Filed By Jeremy Ryan Graves

Office Of The Attorney General – Arizona

Public Advocacy and Civil Right Division

RE: CIC 13-08356 JEREMY RYAN GRAVES  Associated Sex Offender Record

Dear Sir or Madam:

It is impossible to respond to this complaint without first expressing the degree of hypocrisy that is being engaged by Mr. Graves. It is Mr. Graves that was delivered services that were rendered exactly as ordered and were not paid for by Jeremy Ryan Graves as agreed upon, OR as he is falsely claims in this complaint. The complaint itself is the continued systematic harassment and personal attacks based on misrepresentation and blatant lies that have been perpetrated by Mr. Graves in conjunction with a small group of Convicted Sex Offenders as a form of bully intimidation tactics directed toward SORArchives.com (SOR). This group uses a website to call upon its users to file false claims, including specifically utilizing the Arizona Attorney General’s Office to continue their contemptible actions. SORArchives would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight, with both facts and supported with evidence.

Issues with Jeremy Graves’s complaint:

1)      There is no basis for the complaints’ accusation that SOR is an “extortion site”.  At no time was Mr. Graves contacted or solicited in any manner directly or indirectly. It was Mr. Graves who initiated contact with SOR and submitted a request for services on January 28, 2013 (Exhibit A).

2)      The complaint claims Mr. Graves “believed” that SOR would “assist me in cleaning up my historical legal record.” The terms of service are clearly published and made available to anyone requesting a Record Review (Exhibit B), there is absolutely nothing found on SOR making such claims as described by Jeremy Graves. SOR has no control to delete or alter someone’s existing “historical” records, the only offer is to review the data found within the SOR database.

3)      The complaint takes significant liberties with the truth when not disclosing that a Removal Review Request can be submitted for FREE (Exhibit C). Mr. Graves ordered an Expedited review to be completed in 24 hours. He CHOOSES the $79.00 service instead of submitting the FREE option that is completed in 7 to 10 days.

4)     The complaint falsely claims “Total amount of damages (list actual loss only) $79.00”. This lie is indicative of the multitude of false claims made by Mr. Graves. The fee of $79.00 for the services rendered as ordered and completed was returned February 12, 2013 to Mr. Graves due to a false “dispute” submitted to PayPal (Exhibit D). Mr. Graves paid $0.00 to SOR, yet filed this complaint which clearly and repeatedly states otherwise AND he signs the form “under penalty of perjury”.

5)      There is no legal basis to Mr. Graves claim the PUBLIC RECORDS found on SOR “are no longer valid for public display on the internet.” Mr. Graves desire to hide his factual history in anonymity does not supersede the public’s right to know, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  He is correct in stating SOR does “cite the Freedom of Information Act”, as all 50 states have a version of such legislature enacted as law. Specifically to Mr. Graves and his criminal records, the State of Washington has a Public Records Act (PRA) under Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17.010 et seq which is a series of laws designed to guarantee that the public has access to public records of government bodies at all levels in Washington.  The introduction to the statute explains the reason for the PRA: “The people of the state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.  The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.”

6)      In his complaint, Mr. Graves acknowledges two different Government agencies released his factual Public Records into the public domain. The charges and conviction in the State of Washington per Statute 9a.44.079 for CHILD RAPE (a 14 or 15 year old) were also released by two additional agencies, the King County Sheriff’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice NSOPW (http://www.nsopw.gov/en-US). The NSOPW clearly defines its copyright policy in stating: “Information generated by the Department of Justice is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Department’s permission” (http://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies.htm#doj). All data disseminated by SOR are legally obtained PUBLIC RECORDS released into the public domain.

7)      Claiming “SOR Archives is under investigation by the Department of Justice” is both not true and irrelevant. Mr. Graves’s group of convicted sex offenders have been making such claims in their online posting for over a year. It is just one example of many whereby making such a claim is used as an attempt to discredit the factual basis of the data found in the SOR database. Saying a thing over and over does not somehow make it reality, much to Mr. Graves chagrin. There has never been any investigation that has resulted in a subpoena, search warrant, written inquiry or any communication in any manner at any time. In fact, Mr. Graves list several agencies he has contacted to which we can assert that there has never been any contact received. In fact, SOR provides a contact form and a fax number (800-735-2567) specifically designated for official Government Agencies wishing to make contact: http://offenders.sorarchives.com/contact-offendex/ (Exhibit E). In respect to consumer complaints being filed with a State’s Attorney General Office, like this one from your office, ALL complaints have been responded to and address all alleged infractions. We have never received additional communication in respect to these AG consumer complaints requiring further discussion.

8)      The complaint further demonstrates its true objective, which is an attempt to harass individuals who have been involved in some capacity in disseminating factual data of Mr. Graves’s criminal charges and conviction for CHILD RAPE. He knowingly list false information to further this agenda. He lists the sales person name as Brent Oesterbald, an individual that Mr. Graves had zero contact with and is well documented in the emails he refers to in the complaint (Exhibit F). He lists “owners” and addresses that he is well aware are not correct information. Custom One Media is a business entity that was sold in July of 2006, and has not existed for SEVEN years (easily confirmed online with Arizona Corporation Commission). Once again, Mr. Graves’s declaration “under penalty of perjury” does not seem to dissuade his efforts in harassment and misrepresentation.

The significant nondisclosure and true agenda of Mr. Graves’s complaint:

1)      In filing this complaint, Mr. Graves claims SOR responded to his complaints with “belligerence, threats and harassment.”  It is Mr. Graves that has conducted himself in an unjustified vitriol manner. He fails to mention that along with being refunded the $79.00 on February 12, 2013, he also sent an apology email February 13, 2013 acknowledging his unjustified attacks that he perpetrated upon SOR (Exhibit G).

2)      The complaint twice references a civil litigation. Specifically, “they are now the defendants in a federal lawsuit for racketeering, harassment, and extortion….” It is well established that anyone can file a lawsuit; a filing does not substantiate the claims as factual. Attempting to validate this complaint with innuendo based on citing a civil court action as if that is some form of affirmation is contemptible. This strategy is particularly egregious and delusive as Mr. Graves fails to disclose that he and his wife are John/Jane Doe plaintiffs in the lawsuit (Exhibit H). The Court will adjudicate a case based on the facts and the law, not the rhetoric of convicted sex offenders.

3)      The reason for the vague insinuation Mr. Graves employs in respect to citing the civil litigation, he does not want to provide any details on what has actually been ruled by the Court. On May 9, 2013 the Honorable Jesus G. Bernal, Federal District Court Judge, ruled on an application Ex Parte for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and “the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs’ application WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” Judge Bernal provides very clear and concise legal authority for his ruling stating many examples on how the lawsuit has “NO MERIT” (Exhibit I).

4) On June 27, 2013 the Honorable Jesus G. Bernal vacated a scheduled hearing set for oral arguments July 1, 2013 and ruled against the Plaintiffs’ from his chambers (Exhibit J). The frivolous case was removed from the California Federal Court. It is now before the Courts’ the submission of a Motion per Rule 46 (b) for Involuntary Dismissal. The significance of the timeline of these events is Mr. Graves filing this complaint on July 13, 2013 is very dubious, only two weeks after the latest major defeat in his lawsuit, but 6 months after the “NON” transaction occurred. The Plaintiffs’ have lost all legal arguments presented before the courts, thus Mr. Graves is now attempting to utilize the Arizona Attorney General Office to continue the vindictive course of harassment and intimidation directed toward SOR by simply changing the venue of his unjustified attacks.

5)      An additional reason for Mr. Graves’s acrimoniousness is he has attempted many online smear campaigns against SOR which have only provided additional exposure to his factual criminal history of being a Child Rapist. These online efforts have not reaped the anticipated results. As a wedding videographer, his criminal history is particularly disturbing for clients planning a family event where many children will be present. Mr. Graves has claimed SOR is responsible for monetary damages due to his belief he “HAD TO” incur costs in changing his business branding (name, printing, website, etc.) from R2Media, LLC to the current Seattle Wedding Videography found online as http://www.weddingvideographerseattle.com . SOR is not responsible for the cost incurred by Mr. Graves in his attempts to hide in anonymity in his community from the facts of his criminal past. The community has the “Right To Know.”

A CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTER THAT IS MAD HE HAS A PUBLIC RECORD ON THE INTERNET.

Read All About Him Click Here

I have extensive inside knowledge about the owners of Offendex.com aka Offendexdata.com and they're now using the website Sorarchives.com. They operate "mugshot" websites which is ironic, since the owners of these websites are ex-convicts themselves. They hatched the idea for this "sex offender website" while they were serving time in prison for another scam they got caught at. They figured who gives a funk about a sex offender? Another irony here is the main owner of this website is a covicted sex offender himself. Big shock, huh? They post people's mugshots & profiles and then try to extort money from them, mainly by harassing their family & friends, through their website or even Facebook. They figure most people don't want their spouse, kids, family & friends photos posted on their website, so a sex offender will normally pay the extortion fee, which they call an "administrative fee", to have the info. removed. Most lawyers won't even consider going after them. They are well "connected" and have close affiliations with an "organization" who operates other websites, mostly "adult" websites. But they didn't count on being under surveilance by Federal law enforcement. The USDOJ will be pressing charges against them very soon. Their days are numbered. 

We are please we are able to resolve this matter and accept your apology below.



SOR Archives,
 
I would like to offer my apology to you for posting a public review of
SOR Archives on RipOffReport.  You can probably understand that I would
very much like to have my information cleared from online profiling, and
after 10 years of compliance with community supervision, have earned
that right legally.  Regardless of your intentions and desire to post my
criminal history online, my posting a very public review of your
business on Ripoff report did not constitute fair play, in my opinion,
and so I would like to apologize for that.  I too own a business and
seek to protect its reputation at all costs so I can understand why you
posted your rebuttal.
 
I would like to see how we can further mediate this unpleasant situation.
  
 Sincerely,
Ryan Graves
[email protected]
www.ryangraves.us

Again, incorrect and you're just providing me more ammunition for Defamation, False Light and slander. My business name is provided in my Paypal account, of course, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my history.  Nor does my wife or our wedding website.  Nor does my personal email or my personal cellphone #, none of which were ever provided to you for the purposes of public posting, identification or harassment.  You are violating so many laws it's laughable.  I will from this point forward let attorneys do what they do best and will not reply to any further communication from you.  Good day and good luck.

Ryan

You included your business when you provided the information about your business prior to posting your slander here and demanding a refund. The services were in fact rendered however the results were not what you were wanting..

You had the option to have this done for FREE. However you chose to expedite in which there is a fee of 79.00 and you get an answer in 72 hours.

Here is what you agreed to.

Expedite means we will expedite your review request and provide an answer back within 72 hours. This is no way means a guarantee of any kind that you will get the results you desire and be removed.

The Agreement to continue
Expedite Review of a record is NOT FREE We require a 79.00 Administrative Fee To initiate a expedite review of any record which and will include, but is not limited to:

Reconfirm the authoritative source(s) from which the data was released as a PUBLIC RECORD into the PUBLIC DOMAIN.Confirm the data being disseminated is the same as originally obtained from the authoritative source(s) utilized to secure the PUBLIC RECORDS.Confirm the Data being displayed within this database was a valid
PUBLIC RECORD released to the PUBLIC DOMAIN at some time in the past.

Please note: information that may no longer be available from the original authoritative source(s) does not negate the authenticity of the factual profiles currently being displayed on this website Confirm the Charges were brought against the individual displayed in a profile where the case was filed (correct jurisdiction).

Confirm a Conviction was issued with the Court where the case was litigated.Confirm the accuracy of the data displayed is the same as the original PUBLIC RECORD released into the PUBLIC DOMAIN from the  authoritative source(s).


We did this within the time promised. You were not found innocent,  there were no other circumstances to consider for your record to qualify to be removed. therefore it was not removed.

You refused to enter discussions about any other options available and instead you ran off to this site as well as others to post up slanderous material.

Hopefully you understand that you brought on this response. To call it harassment is not true and will never hold up.


In the future please think before you post.

SOR Archives - the business in question here - has now proceeded on a smear campaign and is attempting to lump me in with a business and smear that business as well, along with providing personal information regarding a personal website for myself and my wife, outside of the parameters of criminal history.  This rebuttal and follow-up comment posted by SOR Archives should not be allowed or posted in any way.  This constitutes harassment on a federal level as well as specifically constitutes harassment under RCW (Revised Code of Washington) 9A.44.130.  Please remove this rebuttal as it is in violation of the law.

Jeremy Ryan Graves filed this report because he is upset that he has a public record on the internet.
His Offense is Rape of a child in the third degree.

Jeremy Ryan Graves
16100 Block Of Midvale Ave N
Shoreline   WA
98133

His public record is located here.
http://www.sorarchives.com/offender/view/335063

After a review of his record it was determined his record was in fact valid and was denied removal. He refused to discuss any other options. He then decided to charge back the fee for the review.

His record no longer qualifies for future reviews or removal.
Additional information is below to warn other webmasters that Jeremy Ryan Graves may also steal services from your website.

Information below is true and valid.

R2Media LLC
[email protected]
http://r2mediallc.com
[email protected]
http://janineandryan.com
(206)290-5009

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯