6thDCA, anti-SLAPP, Attorney Jay Leiderman, Becca Tobin, Bullyville.com, BV Files, Christina McGibney, Christina Orduna McGibney, James McGibney Rosendin Electric, Jay Leiderman, Revenge Porn, Rosendin Electric, Rosendin Electric revenge porn, Rosendin Electric sexual harassment, Sixth District Court of Appeal, Thomas Retzlaff, ViaView Inc
James McGibney (who we don’t like) and his wife Christina Orduna-McGibney own and operate together the sexual blackmail company ViaView, Inc. McGibney and his wife have been involved in the revenge pornography business for many years now. While both of them have enjoyed the fruits of their blackmail schemes from the running of their numerous and various defamation and extortion websites — and forcing little girls to ransom back their intimate photographs, neither James nor Christina believe that they should have to pay their fair share of taxes that everyone else in the United States of America has to pay!
Revenge pornographer and tax deadbeat McGibney works for San Jose, CA based Rosendin Electric. We urge each and everyone of our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters to immediately reach out and contact Rosendin Electric to protest their hiring of a piece of human garbage.
BUT FIRST SOME UPDATES……
On June 22, 2016, oral arguments were conducted before the Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose, California, in the case of ViaView, Inc. v. Thomas Retzlaff, Case # H041521. This case is the third and final LOLsuit that was filed by James McGibney (who we don’t like) against American Hero & Honorary Admin of the BV Files Thomas Retzlaff.
For those of you keeping score at home, this LOLsuit was one of three “SLAPP” suits ViaView filed within four weeks and simultaneously maintained against Retzlaff and other defendants in courts in Texas and California pleading substantially the same facts:
i. Cause No. 067-270669-14; McGibney v. Retzlaff, et al.; in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas (the Texas LOLsuit, filed February 19, 2014).
ii. Cause No. 5:14-cv-01059-BLF; McGibney v. Retzlaff, et al.; in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the federal LOLsuit, filed March 6, 2014); and,
iii. Cause No. 1-14-CH-005460; ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff; in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California (the restraining order case, filed March 17, 2014).
Pursuant to the mandate from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals, on April 14, 2016, the Hon. Don Cosby of the 67th District Court of Tarrant County in Fort Worth, Texas, signed a judgment ORDERING ViaView and James McGibney to pay $150,000 in sanctions and over $300,000 in attorney’s fees for violating the Texas Citizens Participation Act (the Texas anti-SLAPP statute).
This is the second time that ViaView and its CEO James McGibney (who we don’t like) have lost a SLAPP case they have filed against Retzlaff. The first being McGibney, et al. v. Retzlaff, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79434 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2015).
FUN FACT: A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
So what happened at the hearing? Below is what was relayed to us, your glorious Admins of the BV Files.
I was told the hearing was not as exciting as what was expected; not nearly as exciting as what happened in the federal case. The speaker phone system used sucked, so it was really hard to hear the judges. Retzlaff opened up on McGibney right away calling him a revenge pornographer who was sexually obsessed with his young daughter. Then he said that the TRO case was really just a defamation case and that McGibney was a SLAPP filer who got hammered in Texas. He further said that the internet is not a workplace.
Retzlaff DEMANDED that the court award him sanctions and attorney fees. He then went on about how ViaView was suspended for not paying taxes and had no business license; thus had no legal capacity to sue. McGibney owns thousands of harassment websites and yet claims he is afraid of getting murdered by TR.
The court asked him just one question pertaining to whether or not the court had personal jurisdiction and that was regarding the Burdick case that the California Supreme Court recently decided (that dealt with a very similar factual & legal situation involving “minimum contacts” and internet LOLsuits) and how he thought it might apply to the TRO case. TR then said that he was willing to forego his complaint about lack of personal jurisdiction so that he could get the SLAPP sanctions.
He then talked about how, even if the TRO was not enforceable across state lines, these kinds of things can still cause problems for people by potentially messing with their gun rights and employment prospects. The court indicated that it understood Retzlaff’s points.
Leiderman then had his turn and he started out claiming that Retzlaff was a life time stalker, the usual Aryan Brotherhood stories, and stuff like that. But the court quickly cut him off and told him to address only the legal issues in this case and only the issue about minimum contacts with California. Leiderman then responded to that question by saying that TRs actions were criminal and that there was criminal jurisdiction over him and that directed threats into California shows that Retzlaff has more than minimum contacts with the forum.
[This response ignores the fact that obtaining criminal jurisdiction is an entirely separate matter from obtaining civil court jurisdiction, and that one does not automatically give you the other. But then again, Leiderman is a drug using retard, so you get what you pay for when it comes to lawyers.]
Leiderman then said that this was not a defamation case (as TR argued) but a threats case. He then talked about burning half breed spics with blow torches, and he basically used the same arguments here that he used in the federal case with Judge freeman.
Leiderman then started to cite cases that were not included in his brief and he started to argue about facts outside the record and not contained in his brief (which is a big No No in Calif.).
He then claimed TR waived his jurisdiction claims by filing the anti-SLAPP motion.
Retzlaff then closed arguments with his rebuttal by reminding the court that the trial judge (Judge Manoukian) had been removed from the case for bias and prejudice and that all of Manoukian’s decisions must be examined in that light. He then called McGibney a revenge porno guy who was sexually obsessed with TR and his daughter and how he is wasting California tax dollars trying to get TROs on people across the country. He then said that Leiderman was still refusing / unable to point to any specific death threats in the appellate record and that McGibney was hit with $450K in sanctions in Texas for a reason. He said McGibney is a hacker associated with Anonymous and that the court must be skeptical of any electronic evidence coming from McGibney. Then he bitched about the volunteer employee claim involving the Peruvian Porno Star Brittany and that they only added the daughter two months after filing the TRO so as to get TR to involve himself in this case.
The court said it had no more questions.
The Chief Justice said no one is to be filing any more motions – that 40 motions had already been filed – and no more motions are to be filed.
And it was done in about 20 minutes.
Oral argument is the opportunity to simplify your arguments for the court, to distinguish between the important and the really important, and to summarize your strongest legal and policy arguments in a five or six-minute presentation. The best oral arguments are conversations with the court, not speeches.
Before the hearing, the appellate judges usually have read the briefs and a bench memo prepared by experienced staff attorneys addressing the facts and issues. So you do not need to waste time by repeating stuff you already should have put into your brief.
If the court says it understands your points and would prefer to hear from the other side, this is almost always a good omen. Thank the court and save your time for rebuttal.
PRO TIP: Experienced appellate practitioners know there are really three oral arguments in every case: the one you plan to make, the one you actually make, and the one you make on the way home. Don’t worry too much afterwards. So go and celebrate your upcoming victory because you know you nailed it good and hard!! Am I right?
MEET THE JUSTICES DECIDING THE CASE….
DO ANY OF THESE GUYS SEEM LIKE POTENTIAL FANS OF REVENGE PORN OR OF MCGIBNEY’S DEFAMATION TACTICS? we didn’t think so, either
Under California law a decision has to be issued within the next 90 days. So stay tuned!
Of course, if you wish to believe the predictions of the McGibney Gang….
MEANWHILE OVER ON THE TWITTER MACHINE…..
It seems that James (Jimmy the Piss Boy) McGibney had too much time on his hands today since he was not at his usual job at Rosendin Electric. So he sat at home, drunk and high on drugs, banging away on his keyboard hammering out one ridiculous Tweet after another CHECK IT OUT!
See him on the Twitter machine====> https://twitter.com/bullygods
So how about this Google result, eh jimmy?
AND THIS WILL NEVER NOT BE FUNNY!
An Emergency Motion to Strike ViaView’s Pleadings was filed with the Court of Appeals earlier this week in which it was pointed out to the Court that ViaView and the McGibney family had not been paying their corporate taxes and, thus, they did not have legal capacity to be litigating this restraining order case.
“[T]he continuing legal existence of a corporation depends on the law of the state of incorporation.” (CM Record Corp. v. MCA Records, Inc. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 965, 967.) A corporation that lacks the capacity to sue in its home state based on a lack of corporate status also lacks capacity to sue in California, because “it has no greater capacity to sue in California than in its home state.” (Id. at p. 969.)
A corporation that is suspended may not prosecute or defend a lawsuit. (Corp. Code, § 2205, subd. (c) [noting that “the corporate powers, rights and privileges of the corporation are suspended” upon nonpayment of taxes]; Rev. & Tax. Code, § 23301 [same]; Palm Valley Homeowners Assn. v. Design Mtc (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 553, 560 [“a corporation suspended for failure to pay taxes . . . [is] disabled from participating in any litigation activities”].)
This is what Leiderman claimed in the brief that he filed with the Court of Appeals:
This is what is really true:
And here is the kicker….
For those of you with bad eyes…
We here at the BV Files have long known that James McGibney (who we don’t like) was an accused pedophile.
But to now find out that both he and his wife Christina McGibney are a couple of common tax cheats — OMG?!?
After all, California is a Community Property state. Thus, the debts of one spouse are the debts of another (which explains why Some Random Person We’ve Never Heard Of Before has been filing property liens against Christina McGibney in county courthouses all over the country these past few weeks!).
In all of the community property states (such as California), it is possible to serve a levy on the nonliable spouse’s salary or wages to reach the liable spouse’s community property interest. Medaris v. United States, 884 F.2d 832 (5th Cir. 1989); Tull v. United States, 848 F. Supp. 1466 (E.D. Cal. 1994), rev’d on other grounds, 69 F.3d 394 (9th Cir. 1995); Vorhies v. Z Management, 87-1 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9200, 59 A.F.T.R.2d ¶ 87-658 (W.D. Wis. 1987).
FUN FACT: If spouses move from a community property jurisdiction to a common law jurisdiction, existing community property does not lose its character by virtue of the move. In re Marriage of Moore & Ferrie, 14 Cal. App. 4th 1472, 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 543 (Cal. App.1993).
All community property states allow spouses to vary the effects of the community property regime by written agreements. HOWEVER
- If the agreement is entered into after marriage and after the liability was incurred, the fraudulent conveyance statutes have been held not only to prevent recharacterization of existing assets, but also recharacterization of property to be received in the future (e.g., wages or other future income). See, e.g., State Board of Equalization v. Woo, 98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 206, 82 Cal. App. 4th 481 (Ct. App. 2000).
The bottom line: It sucks to be you McBitchney. Way to really fuck over your wife and kids by filing all these LOLsuits against a man who simply cannot be intimidated by any of your nonsense. Am I right?
Convicted child abuser and well known drug addict, Beaumont attorney John S. Morgan, has a date with a Texas judge on Monday, June 27, 2016, in a lawsuit he filed on behalf of fellow drug addict Nederland, TX private investigator Philip R. Klein and Klein’s employee Stephen Hartman (who may also be a likely drug addict, too).
As out teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters all know, Klein is a criminal and a fraudster who scams the families of missing children out of money by making ridiculous claims and false promises.
This LOLsuit was one filed by Morgan on behalf of Hartman against a Texas State Judge named Layne Walker in which Hartman is all butt-hurt over being arrested by Sheriff’s Deputies for creating a disruption in Judge Walker’s courtroom. American Hero & Honorary Admin of the BV Files Houston attorney Jeffrey Dorrell is representing Judge Walker.
There will be a hearing on Monday on Walker’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, which is basically the same as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
In our expert opinion, John Morgan needs to be murdered and if there is anyone out there who knows Morgan please do not hesitate to IMMEDIATELY contact your local office of The Aryan Brotherhood so that they can make a pizza & DVD “delivery” to his residence late in the might.
More on this Monday afternoon – so be sure to check back!