MATTHEW KEYS NEEDS TO KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH IS THAT BECAUSE JAY LEIDERMAN HAD ANOTHER CLIENT MORE IMPORTANT THAN HIM, KEYS’ CASE GREATLY SUFFERED AS A RESULT AND KEYS WAS LEFT HUNG OUT TO DRY.
Last March 2014 attorney Jay Leiderman obtained a $250,000 home equity loan so that he could own a piece of ViaView, Inc. when he thought ViaView was on the way up. Unfortunately for Leiderman’s other client, Matthew Keys, Leiderman was too busy filing SLAPP suits across the country than to devote any time to Keys’ defense to federal computer hacking charges. So it should be no great surprise to anyone that Keys was found GUILTY on all counts and is now facing 25 YEARS in federal prison because his attorney Jay Leiderman had no time for him or his defense since Leiderman was too busy trying to protect his ViaView investment and save his home from foreclosure.
Contact Matthew Keys and let him know: http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/contact/
WoW! What kind of attorney is willing to sacrifice his clients’ freedom all for his own personal gain? The kind of attorney who advertises on bus stops, like this one right here below. CHECK IT OUT!
Unfortunately for Jay Leiderman’s clients, Leiderman put them all on the back-burner so he could file a series of cross-country SLAPP suits in an effort to drum up publicity for James McGibney (who we don’t like) and ViaView’s hoped for Rolling Stone magazine article and Warner Brothers television deal. Because Leiderman cares more about the sexual blackmail of little girls then his actual, paying clients – his clients on trial for their lives and freedom, Matthew Keys just got found GUILTY on ALL counts on what was supposed to be a slam-down case for the defense. Now Keys is facing 25 years in federal prison because his attorney cared more about James McGibney (who we don’t like) and revenge porn then he cared about providing effective assistance of counsel – a fundamental Constitutional right.
ViaView, as our long time readers will recall, is a revenge pornography / blackmail company run by James McGibney (who we don’t like). Jay Leiderman styles himself as ViaView’s General Counsel or Corporate Attorney. Leiderman is a solo practictioner – meaning he works all by himself. So when he is (for example) too high on Vicodin to function clearly, there is no one around to pick up the slack. So the work does not get done and the clients suffer.
But when one hires a retard like Jay Leiderman, it means that they are desperate, have no monies, and are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Good attorneys do not put advertisements on bus stops. In fact, good attorneys do not even have to advertise. After all, when was the last time you saw a television ad for American Hero and Honorary Admin of the BV Files Houston attorney Jeffrey Dorrell?
But then again, Jeff Dorrell is not a drug addict who represents indigent hacker-types or guys who make a living off of blackmail and revenge pornography, right?
BUT FIRST SOME NEWS…..
Texas private investigator Philip R. Klein of Nederland, Texas, is a criminal who supports the abuse of young children. Klein is also responsible for the creation of FAKE court papers that resulted in the false arrest of two people near San Antonio, Texas, not too long ago.
Klein is being sued for $8 million, if you will recall our last article.
About two weeks ago, for some strange reason, Klein thought it would be a good idea to send some harassing emails to American Hero & Honorary Admin of the BV Files Thomas Retzlaff and his family members. Now we don’t know about you guys, but we would like to think that we have more sense than to be trying to harass a guy who your own people say is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang, who has been involved in several unsolved homicides and assaults on law enforcement officers across the country (ALL ALLEGEDLY!), who owns several guns, knows your home address, and has money to travel at the drop of a hat!
But then again we are not heroin addled e-Detectives / mental retards like Philip Klein clearly is.
According to a posting on McGibney’s own Bullyville.com website (always a credible source of information, right?), the following message was sent to Klein’s attorney, Rick Espey on September 18th:
Email allegedly sent from Retzlaff to Klein’s attorney Rick Espey
Apparently Klein did not believe that our American Hero was a man of his word. So Klein decided to be funny and try to poke the bear with a stick once again and send some more stupid emails. Thus, San Antonio attorney Rick Espey, who resides at 22903 Mangrove Dr., San Antonio, TX, 78260, was paid a very up close and personal visit just a few days ago. Seriously. If anyone does not believe this, just ask Espey’s wife Nancy.
And this is what happened as a direct result. CHECK IT OUT!
Bad things happen to bad people and Philip Klein is a bad person.
So now that Klein has no attorney what will he do? Does anyone reading this have any ideas that they would like to pass on that might help? Yeah, we didn’t think so, either.
Anyone care to bet $8 million that Philip Klein now wishes he had never heard of Tom Retzlaff or his daughter Brittany before? Bet Klein wishes he could take back those emails. Bet Klein wishes a lot of things right now.
If we here at the BV Files were to hazard a guess, we think that Paul Gianni and John Morgan all wish the same thing, too. So will Evan Stone be the next member of this club? Only time will tell. – lol
Some Random Person We’ve Never Heard Of Before sent us this photograph in an email that is date-stamped just two days ago.
IN OTHER NEWS….
As mentioned early in the comments section of the last article, we here at the BV Files can confirm that a Statement of Disqualification was recently filed against Judge Socrates Manoukian of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Department 19.
Hey, BV Files – So what does that mean?, you ask? Well hold your gosh darn horses, kiddies, and we will sit down and explain it all to you!
However, in order for us to do so it will require you all to enroll in a Harvard certified Executive Education legal type law course for the next 20 minutes or so it will take you to read this article. So please fax us all your monies to 805-654-0280.
Please just keep in mind that this legal “advice” is completely marginal, at best, and is only worth what you paid for it. For all you know, the person behind this post could be a drunken chicken pecking away randomly on someone’s unattended laptop!
Nothing substitutes for the advice of a lawyer YOU paid for.
Motions and statements to disqualify a judge are used to remove a superior-court judge, court commissioner, or referee from a hearing or trial. The ability to disqualify a judge safeguards each party’s right to a fair and impartial hearing or trial and preserves the public’s confidence in the judicial system.
A party can disqualify a judge by filing either a motion to disqualify (also known as a peremptory challenge) or a statement of disqualification (also known as a challenge for cause). The methods of disqualification are cumulative, not mutually exclusive. <====THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT SO PAY ATTENTION.
There are several important differences between the two methods of disqualification. A motion to disqualify can be filed only once but does not require factual proof of the judge’s prejudice to be successful. A statement of disqualification, on the other hand, can be filed multiple times as long as each new statement alleges facts suggesting new grounds for the disqualification.
PRO TIP: Although no statutory rules require one method to be asserted before another, sometimes there is a practical reason for a party to assert one method before another. If there is cause for disqualification, a party should save its motion to disqualify and file a statement of disqualification.
So what happened here? Well it seems that evidence was discovered which shows that Judge Manoukian is biased or prejudiced against our American Hero & Honorary Admin of the BV Files TR and a Statement of Disqualification was filed.
In California, a judge has an independent duty to disqualify himself or herself from any proceeding (i.e., action, case, cause, motion, or special proceeding) when disqualification is required by law. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3E (1); see California Code of Civil Procedure §§170.3(a)(1), 170.5(f). Thus, a judge must make reasonable efforts to keep himself informed of his personal and financial interests, as well as the interests of his spouse and children living in the household. CCP §170.1(a)(3)(C).
A judge must be disqualified if there is a reasonable doubt that he can be impartial. CCP §170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii). The standard for disqualification under CCP §170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) is an objective one; the judge’s personal view of his own impartiality is not a factor. Flier v. Superior Ct. (1st Dist.1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 165, 170 (discussing former CCP §170.1(a)(6)(C), now §170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii)). The standard is whether a reasonable member of the public, aware of all the facts and circumstances when the statement of disqualification was made, would fairly entertain doubts about the judge’s impartiality. Wechsler v. Superior Ct. (4th Dist.2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 384, 391; Flier, 23 Cal.App.4th at 170. Proof of actual bias or prejudice is not required—the appearance of either is sufficient. See People v. Freeman (2010) 47 Cal.4th 993, 1000-01; Wechsler, 224 Cal.App.4th at 390.
Fun Fact: The appearance of bias or prejudice toward a party is sufficient to support a judge’s disqualification. A party does not have a duty to investigate a judge’s background or relationships to determine whether there are grounds for disqualification.
So why is it that Judge Manoukian is disqualified to hear this case?
Judge Manoukian stated in court that he, his wife, and children have been the “victim” of stalking / cyber-stalking of a kind identical to that which Via View and its CEO James McGibney claim to be victims of.
THE COURT: I’m interested in knowing these things. You know, I’d be nervous if someone is stalking my wife and kids — well, it’s actually happened. I know what that’s like.
McGIBNEY· For two years?
Thus, the reasoning goes, if the judge has been the victim of a crime for which a defendant stands before him accused of doing, the judge cannot be impartial or fair to the defendant. So the judge has got to go!
The filing of a statement of disqualification divests the judge of most of his powers to act until the statement is decided. What that means is that there will be no trial on November 2nd.
Now under California law, the other side (in this case, McStupid and Leiderman) do not have a say in what happens next. In fact, other than watching on the sidelines, they play no role whatsoever.
The challenged judge may respond to a statement of disqualification in one of three ways: (1) by striking the statement, (2) by consenting to the disqualification, or (3) by filing an answer. Under the law, the judge is only given ten days to respond. In our case, since Judge Manoukian was served on October 7th, he has until October 17th to respond (weekends and holidays count).
1. Strike defective statement. The challenged judge can respond to the statement by entering an order striking it. CCP §170.4(b). The statement can only be struck if it was not timely filed (not filed “as soon as practicable”), alleges no legal grounds for disqualification, or, if any earlier statement was filed, does not allege any new grounds for disqualification.
2. Consent to disqualification. The challenged judge can respond to the
statement by consenting to it. CCP §170.3(c)(3). The judge can consent to it by not filing a response within the ten day time limit he has to file a response, or file a consent agreeing to the disqualification.
3. File answer. The challenged judge can respond to the statement by filing an
answer. CCP §170.3(c)(3). The answer must be filed within ten days of service of the Statement of Disqualification, and the answer must be made under oath. If the judge elects to challenge the disqualification, then the matter will be referred to another judge for a full hearing (with testimony and evidence).
If the disqualification is consented to or, after a hearing, granted, then the case will be referred to another judge and the case will then move forward in whatever fashion that new judge decides.
If the disqualification is denied or not granted, that decision can be challenged by filing a petition for a writ of mandate. See CCP §170.3(d); People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 304.
So in any event, the matter has been filed and it is now up to Judge Manoukian to decide what he wants to do. Leiderman and McGibney have no say in the matter.
Ventura, California Jay Leiderman obtained a $250,000 home equity loan in March 2014. CHECK IT OUT!
For those of you with eyes, note the date that this document was signed: March 11, 2014.
As stated above, Leiderman (on behalf of his revenge pornographer / blackmail artist client James McGibney (who we don’t like)), has filed a series of identical SLAPP suits.
(i) Cause No. 067-270669-14; McGibney v. Retzlaff; in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas (filed February 19, 2014);
(ii) 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,
(iii) Cause No. 1-14-CH-005460; McGibney v. Retzlaff; in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California (the instant case, filed March 17, 2014).
Working together, our American Heroes & Honorary Admins of the BV Files, Houston attorney Jeffrey Dorrell and Thomas Retzlaff have successfully defeated McGibney and Leiderman in the federal court case. United States District Court Judge Beth Freeman in the San Jose Division of the Northern District of California ruled that ALL of their evidence was “baffling” and “inadmissible” and she further ruled that there was absolutely no personal jurisdiction over Retzlaff in the state of California for ANY of plaintiff’s ridiculous and stupid claims. McGibney, et al. v. Retzlaff, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79434 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2015).
Working together, our American Heroes & Honorary Admins of the BV Files, Houston attorney Jeffrey Dorrell and Thomas Retzlaff have successfully defeated Leiderman and McGibney in the Texas case, too.
In a unanimous decision by the Texas 2nd Court of Appeals, the appellate court found ViaView, Inc. and McGibney both GUILTY of violating the Texas Citizens Participation Act (the Texas anti-SLAPP law found in Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code chapter 27). Rauhauser, et al. v. McGibney & ViaView, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 13290, 2014 WL 6996819 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth Dec. 11, 2014, no pet.). Pursuant to the Order of the appellate court, that case was recently remanded to the trial court for the imposition of mandatory attorney’s fees and mandatory sanctions, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §27.009(a). Rauhauser, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 13290, 2014 WL 6996819, at *8. Attorney’s fees have totaled apx. $300,000 with $1 million in sanctions being sought.
These two idiots filed these SLAPP suits because they wanted to get another publicity stunt like what happened before with McGibney’s Hunter Moore lawsuit. Remember that?
McGibney promised to donate the monies to battered womens. But he instead spent it all on crappy tattoos- seriously!
The plan was for McGibney and Leiderman to create the same kind of PR bump that they got with the Hunter Moore LOLsuit above in these here LOLsuits against the members of the Grand Civil Conspiracy Theory of Retzlaff, Rauhauser, Lipton, Lusher, Basko, Camp, Miss Anon News, D’Alessandro and Jane Does 1 – 5.
He even admits it in this Twitter posting shortly after the first LOLsuit was filed. CHECK IT OUT!
Unfortunately for them, things did not quite work out as planned now did they?
Hey BV Files – But what happened? How could this be?, you ask. It happened because Jay Leiderman is a drug addict who has admitted to appearing before federal court and practicing law while under the influence of the drug Vicodin.
You, Mr. Leiderman, are a marginal solo practitioner, (more commonly known as a ham and egg lawyer). You work alone and you live paycheck to paycheck. You do not have a job so much as you have an office, with a phone, that you share space in. You dress up like a lawyer, go in to work, and sit at your desk. The phone hasn’t been ringing much (or at all if you want to get technical about it). Big cases don’t come your way; court appointments do.
— Letter to Leiderman from Some Random Person We’ve Never Heard Of Before
The letter goes on to state:
Also, I am willing to bet that the kind of guy who can easily squash a promised Rolling Stone magazine interview and television deals with Warner Brothers studios is also the kind of guy who can make certain that no attorney in California will ever consider partnering up with you and that the only cases you get to litigate are court appointed ones involving DWIs and hot checks. That guy is also the kind of guy who will make a personal effort to make things economically tough on you and your client for years and years and years. After all, you will never know just how many potential clients decide to not dial your number and to pass you by for some other attorney.
When your client decided to put my daughter’s name in his mouth, he signed his death sentence. After all, where are all the ViaView investors, advertisers, celebrity sponsors, magazine articles and Hollywood deals? Dead, right?
Every day that this goes on is another dollar you don’t make, and more time you spend on a client with very little money while your real clients lose out.
By the way, how are Paul Gianni and John Morgan doing?
Mr. Keys (2nd from the left) has been charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1030(a)(5)(A); one count of knowingly transmitting a code with the intent to cause damage to a protected computer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A); and one count of attempt to transmit a code with the intent to cause damage to a protected computer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 1030(a)(5)(A).
Because Jay Leiderman was too busy focusing on the LOLsuits involving Retzlaff and Dorrell, he was not able to provide Matthew Keys with the time and attention to his case that Keys deserved.
See Keys paid Leiderman money for his criminal defense. Keys faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in federal prison, $750,000 in fines, and 9 years of supervised probation once he gets out.
But Leiderman was not able to provide Matthew Keys with effective assistance of counsel, in violation of Keys’ fundamental Constitutional rights. Why couldn’t Leiderman work on Matthew Keys case like he was supposed to? Well because Leiderman was trying to save his ass and McGibney’s ass in these SLAPP suits. Leiderman – who works alone, remember – has been forced to deal with all of the terribly vexatious court filings and court hearings caused by Retzlaff in the San Jose restraining order case.
Every time Leiderman is forced to drive to San Jose (a five hour trip, each way), he is forced to make a choice between working on McGibney’s BULLSHIT (to use a legal term) cases or to work on the cases of those who matter, people like Matthew Keys and the other defendants Leiderman has been appointed to represent.
If anyone wishes to let Matthew Keys know that he now has yet another ground for appealing his case – Leiderman’s ineffective assistance of counsel – please let him know ASAP as time is running out!
In the mean time, check out this LIVE VIDEO FEED from inside the home of James McGibney!