Tug O’ War Develops In Federal Court Regarding Testimony Of Accused Pedophile / Revenge Pornographer James McGibney!!


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Good day, eh?  Well not so good if you are revenge pornographer / accused pedophile James McGibney (who we don’t like) of Round Rock, Texas, who (at long last), will finally be questioned under oath regarding more than 6 1/2 years’ worth of wild, outlandish court filings and public claims that he has made regarding your American Heroes & Honorary Admins of the BV Files Neal Rauhauser, Thomas Retzlaff, Lane Lipton, Lora Lusher, @Miss Anon News, Jennifer D’Alessandro, Jane Does 1 – 5, and much, much more!!


Or will he?

It seems as if the Federal Government is attempting to weigh in and prevent this.  Will they be successful?  Not a chance!  But the drama unfolding is pretty exciting and it is all 100% VERIFIED!!





As many of you, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters will recall, our blog server is hosted overseas in lovely Dubai, UAE. While being hosted in Dubai has numerous advantages…


Bulletproof host 4 Bulletproof host 2 Bulletproof host 3

…it does come with more than a few hassles.  One big hassle that you, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters are well aware of is the annual Ramadan take-over of this blog by our ‘neighbors’ in ISIS who are co-located on our server.  This has lead to accusations of “death threats”, claims of car bombs, and fatwas being made against your American Heroes & Honorary Admins of the BV Files Neal Rauhauser, Thomas Retzlaff, and Jeffrey Dorrell by reputable lawyers like John Morgan of Beaumont, Texas.  CHECK IT OUT!!


And claims of ‘death threats’ made by equally reputable private investigators such as Philip Klein of Nederland, Texas.



Such lunacy only results in a great deal of unnecessary work for the FBI and the super secret grand juries that Morgan, Philip Klein, and James McGibney (who we don’t like) constantly blather on about that they claim are busy investigating Retzlaff “and others” for various and sundry misdeeds of no import whatsoever.

The fact that neither Rauhauser, Retzlaff or Dorrell have anything to do with this blog makes no difference to the mind of a vexatious crazy person like Morgan who not only is an admitted perjurer, but is literally a drug addled crazy person who was ORDERED into mental health / substance abuse counseling TWICE by the State Bar of Texas as a direct result of grievances filed by Retzlaff against him!

In any event, in order to keep our ISIS neighbors happy, we have agreed to post stuff from them from time to time.  So in keeping with recent events involving reports of civil unrest across America, we bring you the following special report.  CHECK IT OUT!!



Social distancing?  No.  But plenty of face masks!



Syria sends advisors to aid US rebels

WASHINGTON — As the United States works through its immense internal challenges with human rights, equality, and government use of force, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad seeks to help the US in the same way the US helped during the recent Syrian civil war.

“We’re sending advisors from our elite special operations units to, you know, help foster peace,” Assad told reporters while hiding a smirk. “I can’t tell you how valuable it was to have a foreign influence stoking the fires during a period of violent unrest. The least we can do is return the favor.”

Assad’s aides exchanged high fives in a symbol of solidarity.

Syrian peacekeeping support for rebels in the US includes combat training and air cover, necessary features of any peace effort and not an attempt to foster chaos or regime change for their own interests.

Assad emphasizes that the American and Syrian civil conflicts have their differences.

“Sometimes you have a country that values the status quo over freedom and individual human life, and when people finally speak up for change, they’re met with unreasonable force, so both sides feel required to escalate,” Assad noted.

“And sometimes you have a shitshow like America, it can go either way, really.”

Intelligence personnel across the Middle East are closely monitoring events in the United States, as civil unrest continues spreading in the aftermath of the death of 46-year-old George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers. Officials in the Middle East have expressed concern the so-called American Spring could further destabilize North America.

“Say what you will about their government, the United States is strategic terrain—not just in the Western Hemisphere, but across the globe,” Abu Hasan Mahmoud, an analyst with Egypt’s General Intelligence Service, said. “They are a major exporter of popular music, cinema, and fast food. But, it is not just Hollywood and McDonald’s; we love the American people and want to see them prosper.”

“It’s important to remember,” continued Mahmoud, “we can’t risk this craziness bleeding over to Canada or Mexico.”

Officials in the region have long kept an eye on the United States. Longstanding concerns that the volatile mix of unemployment, a problematic record of civil rights, and a charismatic national leader widely seen as unstable could create a powder keg were validated last month as protests and riots broke out across the country.

Not everyone is convinced of the magnanimity of the intelligence services. Some see darker and more nefarious motivations at work. Ahmed al-Mostafa is a civil rights lawyer from Alexandria and expressed skepticism of the intelligence services’ intentions.

“They are not concerned about the well-being of the American people,” said al-Mostafa. “They only see opportunity and a chance to prop up some tin pot dictator who will just do whatever is good for Egypt. This is nothing more than a scheme to exchange blood for oily fast food.”

Sources in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria have confirmed they are also closely monitoring events in the United States.

“No one wants to talk about it publicly,” said a Lebanese intelligence officer who requested to remain anonymous, “but these people just aren’t suited to govern themselves. They need help from more advanced societies.”





Could it be true, that current Nazi / former attorney Jason Lee Van Dyke is accused of being involved in a July 2016 political assassination?  According to newly filed court records – yes.  CHECK IT OUT!!



Petitioner's Amended Rule 404 Notice


Keep in mind that this is not the first time that Van Dyke has been involved in a plot to murder people.









Does anyone care about the tears of a Nazi?




And how did super special agent Wicevich respond?  CHECK IT OUT!!!





A federal appeals court has rejected adult film star Stormy Daniels defamation suit against President Donald Trump and upheld the award of sanctions.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Friday, July 31, 2020, the lower court’s decision from October 2018 to dismiss the case and award President Trump mandatory sanctions and attorney’s fees pursuant to the Texas anti-SLAPP law!

U.S. District Judge S. James Otero had ruled that Trump’s tweet at the center of the case was “rhetorical hyperbole” protected by the First Amendment instead of the defamation alleged.

Daniels, born Stephanie Clifford, alleged that she was threatened in a Las Vegas casino parking lot in 2011 after agreeing to cooperate with a magazine that intended to publish a story on her alleged intimate relationship with Trump in 2006.

Daniels sued over an April 18, 2018, tweet in which Trump said the sketch of a man who allegedly threatened Clifford in 2011 was a “total con job.”

Trump has frequently denounced the 9th Circuit as a bastion of liberalism and has claimed its rulings are driven by political bias against him.  However, the three-judge panel that ruled unanimously in Trump’s favor on the libel suit is composed of Democratic appointees: Clinton nominees Sidney Thomas and Kim Wardlaw and Obama nominee Jacqueline Nguyen

The court’s opinion Friday also addressed a more arcane legal issue about a special procedure Trump’s lawyers used to knock Daniels’ suit out at an early stage.  A Los Angeles-based federal court trial judge ruled that Texas law applied in the case and that Trump’s lawyers could avail themselves of a state law there that discourages libel lawsuits about matters of public controversy and debate.

Because of a ruling from the federal appeals court that covers Texas, federal courts in that state don’t apply the special Texas statute, often called an anti-SLAPP law.  However, the 9th Circuit does apply those kinds of laws.

Asked about Friday’s ruling, Daniel’s attorney Clark Brewster faulted that aspect of the decision, arguing that the 9th Circuit should have deferred to the court that handles Texas, the 5th Circuit.

“To reach the result set forth in its ‘unpublished decision’ the 9th Circuit had to break with established rules of comity,” Brewster said. “Ms. Clifford has directed us to proceed to seek further review by the 9th Circuit, en banc.  If that effort fails we will likely seek review by the Supreme Court.”  (Unfortunately for him, Tom Retzlaff is already there first and his case is the one that will decide this issue for the entire country!)


The BIG TAKE-AWAY from the 9th Circuit’s decision is this:

The TCPA is indistinguishable from California’s law in all material respects.



As many of you, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters will recall, the California anti-SLAPP statute has been around for almost 30 years.  Specifically, in 1992 California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, a statute intended to frustrate SLAPPs by providing a quick and inexpensive defense.  It provides for a special motion that a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech.

The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body.  It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.

In the case involving your American Hero & Honorary Admin of the BV Files Thomas Retzlaff and the $100 million defamation / SLAPP lawsuit filed by Nazi / pedo guy Jason Lee Van Dyke, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held in Klocke v. Watson, 936 F.3d 240, 244–47 (5th Cir. 2019) that the Texas anti-SLAPP law (called the Texas Citizens Participation Act or TCPA) did not apply in federal court because of something called the Erie doctrine.


FUN FACT: The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the United States which mandates that a federal court called upon to resolve a dispute not directly implicating a federal question (most commonly when sitting in diversity jurisdiction, but also when applying supplemental jurisdiction to claims factually related to a federal question or in an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy) must apply state substantive law.

The doctrine follows from the Supreme Court landmark decision in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938).  The case overturned Swift v. Tyson, which allowed federal judges sitting in a state to ignore the common law local decisions of state courts in the same state in diversity actions.

There are two main objectives of the Erie decision: (1) to discourage forum shopping among litigants, and (2) to avoid inequitable administration of the laws.  Broadly speaking, the second objective is sometimes referred to as “vertical uniformity” and is rooted in the idea that in a given state, the outcome of the litigation should not be grossly different just because a litigant filed a claim in a state court rather than a federal court or vice versa.

The Erie doctrine today applies regardless of how the federal court may hear a state claim.  Whether the federal court encounters a state law issue in diversity jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction, or bankruptcy jurisdiction, the federal court must honor state common law when deciding state law issues.

In effect, when the U.S. Constitution does not control and Congress has not legislated (or cannot legislate) on a topic, then the laws of the states necessarily govern and state judge-made rules are equally binding on the federal courts as state statutes.


DOUBLE FUN FACT:  The Erie case involved a fundamental question of federalism and the jurisdiction of federal courts in the United States.  In 1789, the Congress passed a law still in effect today called the Rules of Decision Act (28 U.S.C. § 1652), which states that the laws of a state furnish the rules of decision for a federal court sitting in that state.  Thus, a federal court in Texas, hearing a case based on diversity (as opposed to a federal question), has to follow the laws of the applicable state in resolving a case before it.  Which is why state anti-SLAPP laws should apply in federal courts in those states that have such laws.


In a nut shell, the 9th Circuit held that the district court correctly concluded under the Erie doctrine that the motion to dismiss procedures of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) — Texas’s version of an anti-SLAPP law — apply in federal court.

We have long held that analogous procedures in California’s anti-SLAPP law apply in federal court, and the TCPA is indistinguishable from California’s law in all material respects.

Though we recognize the Fifth Circuit recently held that the TCPA does not apply in federal court, the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion cannot be reconciled with our circuit’s anti-SLAPP precedent.  We are bound to follow our own precedent, which requires us to apply the TCPA.


Here is the decision from the 9th Circuit:



Clifford v Trump - 9th Circuit Opinion - 7-31-2020


So why is this a big win for Retzlaff?  Because it further cements in stone the split among the various U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals as to whether or not state anti-SLAPP laws apply in federal court.  And it specifically applies with a circuit split as to how one state’s anti-SLAPP law applies in federal courts.

The attorney for Nazi punk Van Dyke is Marc Randazza, who is also a white supremacist that is a disgusting sexual pervert who likes to steal money from his clients.  Randazza is attempting to argue that the U.S. Supreme Court should deny review of the Retzlaff v Van Dyke case.  Randazza claims that that no case could ever helpfully address the applicability of state anti-SLAPP laws in federal court because “each state’s statute has its own distinctive features.”  See page 3 of the opposition brief below.



Van Dyke Brief in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari


As recently explained to us by Some Random Person We’ve Never Heard Of Before,

Their distinctions make little difference to the circuit split.  The problem is not that different circuits applying the same legal rule to different state provisions have reached different results.  That could be no problem at all.  The problem is that different circuits apply different legal rules to similar, if not completely identical, state provisions to reach contradictory results.

As the 9th Circuit recognized, it employs a version of “conflict preemption” analysis between federal and state rules while those circuits on the other side of the split use a version of “field preemption” analysis.  The decision from the 9th Circuit in the Clifford v Trump case only further highlights this problem.

These dramatically different approaches lead to conflicting results which only the Supreme Court can resolve.


As you can see, Your American Hero & Honorary Admin of the BV Files Thomas Retzlaff has the continued support and assistance from most of America’s largest and influential media organizations.  That support is only going to increase as the case gets further teed up for arguments before our nation’s highest court. 



SCOTUS Amicus brief - Retzlaff v Van Dyke - 7-8-2020



Already Retzlaff has the love and support of our President having recently met with his staff members at The White House during a January visit before the virus rolled into town in order to plan out this Supreme Court case in which the University of Virginia’s School of Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is heavily involved.

Has James McGibney (who we don’t like) ever set foot inside of The White House?  NO!


Courtesy: White House Press Office



US Supreme Court Petition - Van Dyke v Retzlaff


One thing that will never not be funny is that it looks like Marc Randazza will have ZERO opportunities at arguing this case before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Why is that, you ask?  Well, it is because Randazza was recently hit with yet more State Bar discipline for wildly unethical – and illegal – conduct.  You see, Marc Randazza is a thief who likes to steal money from his clients.  While a recently filed Report & Recommendation from a Florida Supreme Court referee recommended that Randazza be placed on probation for his crimes, we have it on super good authority that the Florida State Bar will be requesting that the Florida Supreme Court overrule that recommendation and will be seeking disbarment.  CHECK IT OUT!!




FL State Bar v Marc Randazza - Report of Referee


The U.S. Supreme Court has understandably very high standards when it comes to ethical conduct of those allowed to argue before it.  Nazis, sexual perverts, and people who think it is a good idea to steal from their clients and double-cross them are totally NOT WELCOME.

We will, of course, keep you all updated on any further developments.





This was just filed with the U.S. Supreme Court this afternoon.  CHECK IT OUT!!




Retzlaff Reply brief











It looks like Van Dyke is about to get poured out of federal court and any chance at winning his $100 million defamation SLAPP lawsuit against Retzlaff because it turns out (big surprise) that Van Dyke has absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support his claims!!

This, of course, is the same BIG PROBLEM that James McGibney (who we don’t like) had when he filed his series of SLAPP lawsuits against Retzlaff in which he, too, made a bunch of wild and outlandish claims.

So now Van Dyke is having to respond to a NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT.



ECF 194 - Retzlaff's mtn for summary judgment





“In our judicial system, ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence.’” Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___, ___, 2020 WL 3848062, at * 4 (July 9, 2020).




James McGibney (who we don’t like) is a revenge pornographer who lives in Round Rock, Texas, at this house right here:

Since around 2012, McGibney has been involved with the sexual blackmail of young girls and their families through the posting of the intimate photographs of these young girls and defamatory comments about them on his Cheaterville.com website.


Tweet for internationally known news reporter


McGibney is a close associate and supporter of former attorney Jason Lee Van Dyke, who is the leader of the Proud Boys white supremacist street gang.  In fact, McGibney is sooo close to Van Dyke and is such a big supporter that Van Dyke listed McGIbney as being his “key witness” in a $100 million defamation / SLAPP lawsuit that he filed against your American Hero & Honorary Admin of the BV Files Thomas Retzlaff!  CHECK IT OUT!!


Van Dyke’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) Initial Disclosures



Van Dyke’s response to an Interrogatory question



In response to Van Dyke’s identification of James McGibney (who we don’t like) as a person with knowledge of relevant facts and as a trial witness on his behalf, Retzlaff and his lawyers at the Hanszen Laporte law firm in Houston issued a deposition subpoena so that they can question McGibney under oath about these claims.



Once McGibney found out that there was a subpoena for him, what did this man who claims to be a former Marine do?  Why he went on the run and hide out from the process servers!!





Then the strangest thing of all happened – the US Attorney’s Office filed a motion seeking to quash this deposition subpoena.  Specifically, Aimee Cooper claims that, because McGibney is an “FBI witness”, he is somehow immunized from having to be questioned under oath about anything that he has said or claimed.  CHECK IT OUT!!


ECF 188 - Govts mtn to quash McGibney subpoena


ECF 189 - Response in Opp to USA's mtn to quash



Of course, the usual knuckleheads from the peanut gallery chime in thinking that something super grand has only just now been revealed…


Seriously? After more than 6 1/2 years of your claimed “investigation”??



FUN FACT:  Aimee Cooper has only been employed by the Department of Justice since September 2019.  Before that she spent about 3 years working as an employment law attorney for the Department of Defense.  Earlier she had spent some time as a Navy JAG officer.  Aimee is a graduate of Creighton University, which, as everybody knows is ranked No. 133 (tie) in Best Law Schools by US News & World Report.

DOUBLE FUN FACT:  Stetson University is ranked No. 105.

Make of that what you will, dear reader.


The problem for Aimee Cooper is that, for more than 33 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that,

Where the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be faulty or who, in fact, might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy, the individual’s right to show that it is untrue depends on the rights of confrontation and cross-examination.


And Retzlaff responded with a motion seeking to compel McGibney’s deposition.


ECF 193 - D's motion to compel McGibney Depo


Furthermore, it looks like, regardless as to what happens in the federal court, McGibney will have to appear anyways for a deposition in that Texas LOLsuit he filed against Retzlaff in Fort Worth (you guys remember, the one where McGibney was hit with over $1.3 million in sanctions and attorney’s fees).  Judge Cosby has told everyone that a final trial on the matter will be taking place in September.  Furthermore, Judge Cosby has made it abundantly clear that additional TCPA sanctions are definately on the table.

So because Neal Rauhauser had to appear at a deposition, so does James McGibney.  CHECK IT OUT!!



Notice of McGibney deposition - 7-29-2020





So James “Jimmy the PissBoy” McGibney blinked and filed a motion to quash his deposition.  He claims that the only issue left to be decided is attorney’s fees.  He is wrong.  Judge Cosby has made it clear that TCPA sanctions are on the table (something having to do with the word “mandatory sanctions” in the statute).

McGibney also claims he should not have to testify because he is a super secret FBI witness and that the FBI is investigating Retzlaff and Rauhauser for the past seven years and that nobody should ever get to question McGibney under oath about his claims.





McGibney's 2nd motion to quash (no exhibits)


What happens next is anyone’s guess.  But one thing is certain:  McGibney will be questioned under oath one way or another, and when he is, we will bring it to you all in living color!



Well, this article has gone on long enough.  So we hope that you, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters are all doing well and staying safe.  After all, without you guys, there would be no need for us to do what we do.


And that’s the bottom line, ’cause Stone Cold said so!

Revenge Porno Perv / White Supremacist James McGibney Facing Arrest Warrant – Fugitive From Justice!!


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Well well well if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions!


Good day, eh?  Well, not so good of you are a white supremacist / revenge pornographer on the run from a group of Texas lawman who have been hired to track you down and drag your sorry ass in front of a judge so you can answer a whole bunch of questions under oath, on video for the entire world to see!


You see, for the past three weeks, James McGibney (who we don’t like), has been hiding out from a group of Texas Constables and private process servers who have been trying to serve him with a federal subpoena for a deposition.

But, BV Files, why are Texas Constables and Texas process servers chasing after McGibney?  Doesn’t he live in California? you ask.  Well, as it turns out:  NO, HE DOES NOT!  For the past 7 months, McGibney and his family have been living just outside of Austin, Texas, in the town of Round Rock in this house right here.  CHECK IT OUT!!



Where James McGibney lives



What is so special about this house is that it is literally right across the street from an elementary school.  An elementary school filled with lots and lots of little girls and little boys!  Oh, and look!  McGibney has a very nice window on the second story from which to spy on them all with his long range cameras so he can take pictures of them as they play on the playground!!



If anyone has any concerns about this, you should probably let the proper authorities know.


Michael Wakefield can be contacted by email:  [email protected]

Or his direct number at:  512-704-0500




As you, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters will recall, James McGibney (who we don’t like) is a revenge pornographer who makes his living from sexually blackmailing young girls.  He has also been repeatedly accused of being a pedophile by some very reputable people, like this person right here:




What does Christina McGibney think now that the ‘truth’ has finally been revealed?




So anyways, at least three federal subpoenas have been issued compelling McGibney to appear for a deposition.  Two times he has ignored them.



Here are the reports from the process servers who have been attempting to serve McGibney.



If you read those reports very carefully, you will see that it looks like McGibney’s supervisor, John Colley, Director, Texas Operations at Rosendin Electric Inc., is actively assisting McGibney in evading getting served with these federal subpoenas!


So who is John Colley?  CHECK IT OUT!!



If you are just as angry about this as we, your Admins of the BV Files, we would suggest that you contact Mr. Colley directly and let him know!

According to court records, this is where he and his wife Kathy live.


The fact that John Colley seems totally cool with the fact that his employee James McGibney (who we don’t like) is a white supremacist and a revenge pornographer is very upsetting and we would call upon you, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters to help organize a community awareness campaign and boycott of John Colley, his family, and his business.

If he does not like it, he is always welcome to sue us.  Our contact information is at the top of the blog.  Just click on the appropriate link to see it.


While Colley might be fine with having McGibney as an employee, we certainly doubt that this young woman here – and her family – are happy about it.  We contacted her recently and she was very shocked, outraged, and hurt by this betrayal.


Jolsna Thomas – Business Development Manager getting an award












Straight from the horse’s mouth. Truer words have never been said.




McGibney blackmailed this young girl by putting photos of her on his Cheaterville revenge porn website along with defamatory comments and then later demanding money to remove them!!






— McGibney tries to claim that these photos from his website are from a hidden camera.  So we post them here so that you, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters can look and decide for yourselves what is real and what is fake.  The fact that he demanded payment of $499 in extortion money to take down the Cheaterville.com post about this girl is 100% real.



Tweet from an internationally known news reporter



tip statement

Truth In Posting screen shot

OR you can use this “service”

reputation resolutionsCheaterville $499 Take Down service_Page_2 Cheaterville $499 Take Down service_Page_3



Brittany’s sex videos and nude pictures were widely available several years before she was posted by McGibney on his Cheaterville.com website.


Sex videos and nude photos of this girl were originally posted online by her ex-husband shortly after she filed for divorce on August 5, 2009.

McGibney then reposted the photos and sex videos on websites all across the internet in an effort to put pressure on her and her family to give into his sexual blackmail demands.







Someone just contacted us and reminded us of the fact that, throughout this entire case, McGibney and his “group” of trolls, engaging in repeated acts of witness intimidation, harassment, and cyber-stalking of Retzlaff’s family.  CHECK IT OUT!!


Denise Hollas affidavit 8-29-2014 - filed 9-26-14_Page_1 Denise Hollas affidavit 8-29-2014 - filed 9-26-14_Page_2 Denise Hollas affidavit 8-29-2014 - filed 9-26-14_Page_3






Collin Retzlaff affidavit 9-24-2014 - filed 9-26-14_Page_1 Collin Retzlaff affidavit 9-24-2014 - filed 9-26-14_Page_2 Collin Retzlaff affidavit 9-24-2014 - filed 9-26-14_Page_3Collin Retzlaff affidavit 9-24-2014 - filed 9-26-14_Page_4 Collin Retzlaff affidavit 9-24-2014 - filed 9-26-14_Page_5


Why did McGibney? Because he is a dumb ass, that is why.


Why did McGibney pick a fight with Retzlaff? Because he is a dumb ass, that is why.



very important 2KEEP IN MIND that I am not Thomas. We are not Thomas. We are sure that there is a Thomas (somewhere), and that he might have said some mean things on the interwebz, but he is not me, and I am not him, and he is not us. Nor are we Neal Rauhauser, JoJo Camp, Lane Lipton, Lora Lusher, Sue Basko, or Jeff Dorrell (all people whom McGibney has FALSELY accused us, the Admins of the BV Files, of being in his various court filings in both state and federal courts all across the country).




A frequent victim of McGibney’s “vigilantism” is Thomas Retzlaff, who has been called a “rapist” and a “pedophile” by name on www.bullyville.com.  McGibney claims it is “100% verified” that Retzlaff “threatened to rape [his] own daughter.”  Another victim is Neal Rauhauser, who has suffered years of personal attacks by McGibney and his group of internet vigilantes against both himself and his family.  It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Retzlaff, Rauhauser, and many others allegedly participated in criticizing McGibney’s unsavory tactics.

To chill and suppress their rights to do this, McGibney sued Retzlaff – three times in two states.  The Texas LOLsuit is one of three “SLAPP” suits McGibney filed within four weeks and simultaneously maintained against Retzlaff, Rauhauser, and other defendants in courts in Texas and California pleading substantially the same facts:

  1. Cause No. 067-270669-14; McGibney v. Retzlaff; in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas (filed February 19, 2014);
  2. Cause No. 5:14-CV-01059-BLF; McGibney v. Retzlaff; in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (filed March 6, 2014); and,
  3. Cause No. 1-14-CH-005460; ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff; in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California (filed March 17, 2014).





So what do we here at the BV Files have to say to James McGibney? 

Your economic destruction was all done for the lulz – 100% VERIFIED


BV great success



So in a continuation of McGibney’s modus operandi of making hysterical claims in order to stir things up, he has filed AT LEAST four different lawsuits – in four different courts, in different places across America, all alleging that different people want to kill him, rape him, rape his wife, kill his wife, yadda yadda yadda.



In a January 27, 2019, news article, McGibney is quoted as claiming the following:






Claim made by McGibney in his federal lawsuit



mcgibney false internet claim

Claim in pleading filed by McGibney in the federal court lawsuit against Retzlaff







As a result of one of the SLAPP lawsuits that McGibney filed against Brittany’s father, Thomas Retzlaff, McGibney was ORDERED by a California court to pay him restitution.


And this is what happened in the Texas case:



Texas Judgment - ViaView v Retzlaff et al




So, BV Files, what is a SLAPP lawsuit and why do you always talk about them? you ask.




Freedom of speech and thought lie at the core of liberty.  Though many philosophers, statesmen, and legal practitioners have opined on the value of free speech and thought, Justice Louis Brandies best captured the value of free speech and thought in our constitutional scheme:

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make [people] free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. . . They believed that freedom to think as you will and speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of American government.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).

Despite its central place in our constitutional scheme, the right to free speech is extremely fragile. Government imposed limitations to speech and thought sometimes elude detection, because government does not always directly regulate speech and, even when it does, the limitations are not always obvious.  Notwithstanding the sometimes opaque nature of direct impositions, a major threat to speech and thought comes from indirect government impositions.


Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) provides one example of an indirect governmentally-imposed limitation to speech and thought.  These are suits brought by one party in an effort to silence another party against whom the suit is filed.  The prototypical SLAPP suit involves a defamation claim against the defendant.  Though government is not directly involved in chilling or silencing the defendant’s speech, the judicial system is the means by which the plaintiff chills or silences the defendant’s speech.  The threat of a potential judgment looming over the defendant implicates the government in the plaintiff’s effort to chill or silence the defendant’s speech.


Texas enacted Anti-SLAPP legislation to curb litigants’ efforts to employ the judicial system as a means to silence or chill another’s speech.  The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) provides pretrial procedural checks against litigation designed to chill a party’s right to free speech, among other first Amendment rights.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.001-011.  The Act allows a party to file a motion to dismiss the case, with an award of attorney fees and costs to the movant if successful on the motion, along with mandatory sanctions to punish the offender.

This procedure is available to any party, regardless of whether it is an individual or entity and regardless of whether the suit is against the person for an act committed in his or her individual capacity or in his or her capacity as a member of the electronic or print media.  There are, however, four exemptions.  Commercial speech falls outside the TCPA.  Suits for bodily injury, wrongful death, or survival also fall outside of the TCPA, as do insurance code suits or actions arising out of insurance contracts.   Enforcement actions by the state also do not fall within the TCPA.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.010(a)-(d).

The Act also provides pretrial appellate procedural checks against suspected SLAPP suits.  If the party alleging a First Amendment right violation is unsuccessful in his motion to dismiss, that party may take an automatic, accelerated interlocutory appeal on the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.008, 51.014(a)(12).  Again, this appellate procedure is available to any party asserting a violation of his right to free speech, association, or to petition government.




The filing of a motion to dismiss under the TCPA triggers a three-step burden shifting mechanism. 

Number One: The person filing the TCPA motion to dismiss (called the ‘movant’) has the initial burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the other guy’s (i.e. ‘non-movant’) “legal action is based on, relates to, or is in response to the movant’s exercise of: (1) the right of free speech; (2) the right to petition; or (3) the right of association.”  See Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 27.005(b).

Number Two: Once the movant satisfied this burden, the trial court was required to dismiss the legal action unless the non-movant “establishes by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question.”  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.005(c).

Number Three: If the non-movant satisfies his burden, the burden then shifts back to movant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence each essential element of a valid defense to the claim.  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.005(d).


In determining whether a non-movant’s claim should be dismissed, the court may consider the pleadings and any supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts on which the liability or defense is based.  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.006(a); see In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 587 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding); see also Rio Grande H2O Guardian v. Robert Muller Family P’ship Ltd., No. 04-13-00441-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 915, 2014 WL 309776, at *3 (Tex. App.–San Antonio Jan. 29, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that “[u]nlike other types of cases where pleadings are not considered evidence, section 27.006 of the Act, which is entitled ‘Evidence,’ expressly provides . . . the court shall consider the pleadings” as evidence in determining whether the legal action should be dismissed).  The trial court does not hear live testimony.  In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 587.

The appellate court conducts a de novo review of the trial court’s ruling on a TCPA motion to dismiss.  Herrera v. Stahl, 441 S.W.3d 739, 741 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2014, no pet.) (appellate court reviews each step of the TCPA analysis de novo).  Which means that the court of appeals looks at everything the trial court did with a completely fresh eye.  This is the most favorable standard of review for a person appealing a case because it allows you to basically get a free do-over of the trial.


James McGibney (who we don’t like) has filed a series of SLAPP lawsuits in courts all across the country suing people whom he does not like and who say “mean things” about him on the internet.  But McGibney forgets that he has already been deemed a “public figure” by his own actions when he started filing lawsuits against Hunter Moore and putting himself out there in front of the media declaring himself to be the moral arbiter of everything on the internet!


affidavit of McGibney’s expert Colleen Connally-Ahem, Ph.D., at paragraph 7







As a direct result of McGibney’s numerous false claims and actions, he has been subpoenaed by a federal court to appear for a deposition to explain himself and exactly what his evidence is regarding his claims of authorship or control of the BV Files website and what his exact qualifications are for making such an expert opinion.


So when McGibney repeatedly failed to appear for his deposition, a request for an arrest warrant was filed.  Look this document over very carefully as it appears that McGibney is linked to several white supremacist groups.  CHECK IT OUT!!






FUN FACT:  We here at the BV Files are absolutely convinced that McGibney has been receiving all sorts of legal advice and reassurances from Nazi / pedo guy (and former attorney) Jason Lee Van Dyke (and probably Evan Stone, too).  But McGibney forgets – and needs to remember – is that the deck has already been stacked against him in Denton County.  Don’t believe us?  Or have you just not been paying any attention at all to what has happened to Van Dyke, who is currently riding out his THIRD State Bar suspension and who is sitting on criminal probation for filing false police reports?

McGibney – and his family and co-workers – are taking a hell of a chance that some judge, somewhere, is not going to order his eventual arrest for dicking around with all of these federal subpoenas.  It is as plain and simple as that.

So govern yourself accordingly!



UPDATE:  June 25, 2020


McGibney has filed a motion to quash his deposition.  This was filed in the Texas LOLsuit, the one McGibney filed against Retzlaff, Rauhauser, and everyone else on the internet who criticized McGibney and hated Kate Gosselin.  CHECK IT OUT!!




Motion to Quash Deposition Notice - McGibney v Retzlaff







What really sucks for McGibney, but is great for the rest of us, is that McGibney has come up against a group of men who simply cannot be intimidated and who have the time, money, and expertise to finally crush him like a bug.  CHECK IT OUT!!



Houston attorneys Anthony LaPorte - Jeff Dorrell - Kent Hanszen

Houston attorneys Anthony Laporte – Jeff Dorrell – Kent Hanszen


Hanszen Laporte employee Thomas Retzlaff






For years James McGibney and his revenge porn / blackmail company ViaView have sought the spotlight. But McGibney needs to remember something very, very important: For a man in his position, the spotlight can turn into an interrogation lamp pretty damn fast!


No wonder McGibney has been evading these federal subpoenas. 





Well, it looks like Jason Lee Van Dyke is in even more hot water with the State Bar disciplinary authorities.


According to sources close to the investigation (which consist solely of the voices in our heads), Van Dyke is being disciplined for making a false police report against your American Hero & Honorary Admin of the BV Files Thomas Retzlaff, and for refusing to pay the State Bar restitution that he had been ordered to pay.

It looks like Van Dyke will never get off of disciplinary suspension!  Which sucks for him, but is great for the rest of us!



Jason Lee Van Dyke & James McGibney?





And lastly, many thanks to Some Random Person We’ve Never Heard Of Before who was kind enough to send us this link to a video on the YouTubes.  The interrogation here is quite skillful.  Guess who ends up in handcuffs at the end of this and WIN A NEW CAR!!






Jason Lee Van Dyke and James McGibney (who we don’t like) would do well to remember these words:



And that’s the bottom line cause Stone Cold Said So!

error: Content is protected !!