Well the case in Texas is over with… and James McGibney (who we don’t like) has lost.
Bullyville Founder James McGibney Gets Bullied By Texas Court Of Appeals – 100% VERIFIED!!
We have just updated the article to include a copy of the entire opinion from the court of appeals. CHECK IT OUT!!
Here is the entire 43 page decision from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals. You can read it yourself. But there is no victory in here for McGibney.
- Nothing that will vindicate him
- Nothing that will restore ViaView
- Nothing that will return all of his lost advertisers
- Nothing that will restore the celebrity sponsors who fled
- Nothing that will bring back all of his investors and their money
- Nothing that will allow McGibney to claim that he won
When asked for comment, American Hero & Honorary Admin of the BV Files Thomas Retzlaff had this to say:
You know this is no different than if you get sick and go to an Emergency Room. The hospital sends you a bill for like $200,000 worth of shit, and then Medicare or Blue Cross goes through the bill marking shit out or saying we are only going to pay “x” amount of dollars for that bed pan and stuff like that.
In the end, the hospital is still going to make its profit.
In the end, we still won this lawsuit and Mr. Dorrell and Hanszen Laporte is still going to be awarded a decent amount of money. Remember – pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered. The Court of Appeals just felt we were being a bit of a hog here. But you know that Judge Cosby will give our side every benefit of the doubt when it comes time to do this shit over and he won’t let Stone fuck around and make it a circus. Yes, McGibney is tweeting and acting like today was a “big win” for him. But it’s not. He still lost, he just didn’t lose by as much.
The bottom line is that the Court of Appeals totally did not buy into McGibney’s arguments about whether or not Rauhauser actually had to pay or if this hybrid-contingency agreement was legit or not. They acknowledged the TCPA is a fee shifting statute. But they pointed out the dangers about attorneys getting greedy on other people’s money, so attorneys fees need to be properly proven up.
So, should this decision stand and it ends up going back to the trial court, that is what will be done. Does anyone here think that Judge Cosby is a friend to Evan Stone and James McGibney? No, of course not!
Plus, if McGibney really is as ‘indigent’ as he claims, what difference does it make if the sanctions award is $250,000 or even $175,000? If he ain’t got no money, he ain’t got no money.
CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW ON MOBILE DEVICESMcGibney v Rauhauser #2 Opinion - 4-19-2018
During oral arguments in this case, which were recorded by Retzlaff, one of the Justices was actually seen by Retzlaff paging through his brief and the Cheaterville ‘exhibits’ that were attached in support of the claim that James McGibney is a revenge pornographer and a serial SLAPP filer.
As you, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters know, a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, though, these pictures are worth $450,000!!
BullyVille founder James McGibney taken into police custody following an assault on opposing party Tom Retzlaff after a court hearing in Ft Worth on June 13, 2017, before the Second Court of Appeals after oral arguments in the Texas LOLsuit in which McGibney was ORDERED to pay victims of his revenge porn over $450,000!!!
Below are a series of screen captures taken off the various video feeds of the security cameras placed all around the Tarrant County courthouse in Fort Worth, Texas. McGibney is in the white, long-sleeve shirt with the black backpack. He is following American Heroes & Honorary Admins of the BV Files Houston attorney Jeffrey Dorrell and Thomas Retzlaff.
But keep coming back as further updates will be posted throughout the day.
McGibney – Just remember, destroying you, your ViaView company, and your family, was all done for the lulz – 100% VERIFIED!!!
In other news today, Deric Lostutter, employee of San Jose revenge porno perv James McGibney (who we don’t like) and the sexual blackmail company ViaView, just got his ass handed to him by a federal judge in North Carolina. Lostutter filed a LOLsuit against Alexandra Goddard claiming that she said mean things about him on Twitter that hurt his feelings.
As out long times readers know, Lostutter is doing hard time in a federal prison in Virgina for lying to the FBI and computer hacking. His attorney was none other than Jay Leiderman!!!
Anyways, Lostutter wanted to have subpoenas served on investigators with the federal prison on account of people have been making complaints against Lostutter which have resulted in his cell being searched and being placed on Lock Down for deviant sexual behavior. CHECK IT OUT!!
REVENGE PORN IN TEXAS….
In other news, Revenge Porn is now legal once again in Texas – for which James McGibney (who we don’t like) ought to be breathing a sigh of relief right about now.
In a case litigated by a very close and personal friend of Some Random Person We’ve Never Heard Of Before, Houston attorney Mark Bennett, Ex parte Jones, the Tyler Court of Appeals earlier today reversed the trial court below and held that the statute was facially unconstitutional.
As has been argued from the day Mary Anne Franks began her efforts to create a criminal revenge porn statute, it clearly implicated the First Amendment’s prohibition against laws infringing on free expression, to which she merely screamed her denials and did her best to deflect by creating a fantasy interpretation of the First Amendment. The court made swift work of it.
In the instant case, Section 21.16(b) proscribes the disclosure of certain visual material, including any film, photograph, or videotape in various formats. Because the photographs and visual recordings are inherently expressive and the First Amendment applies to the distribution of such expressive media in the same way it applies to their creation, we conclude that the right to freedom of speech is implicated in this case.
The court then held the statute to be content-based, and therefore subject to strict scrutiny. It thus had to fit within a categorical exception to the First Amendment.
Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted, as a general matter, only when confined to the few historic and traditional categories of expression…
The State argues in its brief that the expectation of privacy and the nonconsensual nature of the disclosure causes any visual material covered by Section 21.16(b) to be unprotected speech because it is contextually obscene. We disagree.
The contention, relying upon Franks’ and Danielle Citron’s “legal” arguments, was that it fell within a new concept of obscenity, “contextually obscene.” Except there is no such category outside of their imaginations, nor can anything be found obscene except by a jury.
For more than forty years, the issue of whether a matter is obscene, and, thereby, constitutes unprotected speech, has been a determination to be made initially by the trier of fact.
Here, Section 21.16 does not include language that would permit a trier of fact to determine that the visual material disclosed is obscene. Moreover, if, as the State argues, any visual material disclosed under Section 21.16(b) is obscene, the statute is wholly redundant in light of Texas’s obscenity statutes.
After offering a hypothetical* to demonstrate how wildly problematic the law was, the court noted that the law failed to make any effort to narrow its prohibitions, which was a fundamental tenet of the Franks approach to criminalizing revenge porn lest anyone get away with it.
We remain mindful that content-based regulations are presumptively invalid. See Thompson, 442 S.W.3d at 348. At the very least, Section 21.16(b)(2) could be narrowed by requiring that the disclosing person have knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the depicted person’s privacy expectation. But because Section 21.16(b) does not use the least restrictive means of achieving what we have assumed to be the compelling government interest of preventing the intolerable invasion of a substantial privacy interest, it is an invalid content-based restriction in violation of the First Amendment.
The court, in an excess of caution, went on to address the statute’s overbreadth problem despite having already held it facially unconstitutional.
Today, a person can share a photograph or video with an untold number of people with a mere click of a button. The daily sharing of visual material, for many, has become almost ritualistic. And once the act of sharing is accomplished, it is highly questionable whether that act ever can be completely rescinded. But assuming that the visual material is not otherwise protected, these persons are acting within their rights when they share visual material with others.
Sharing may not be caring as far as Franks is concerned, but it’s constitutionally protected.
Section 21.16 is extremely broad, applying to any person who discloses visual material depicting another person’s intimate parts or a person engaged in sexual conduct, but where the disclosing person has no knowledge or reason to know the circumstances surrounding the material’s creation, under which the depicted person’s reasonable expectation of privacy arose. Furthermore, its application is not attenuated by the fact that the disclosing person had no intent to harm the depicted person or may have been unaware of the depicted person’s identity. Accordingly, we conclude that the criminal prohibition Section 21.16(b) creates is of “alarming breadth” that is “real” and “substantial.”
Neither of these holdings will come as any surprise, as the issues have long been raised here and elsewhere, and the absurd efforts of Franks and other supporters of revenge porn laws to twist First Amendment law into some sham of rhetorical relativity as if they could talk their way out of clear, settled law and make the flagrant unconstitutionality of their cries disappear.
But then, it’s different to have a court dismiss their arguments so handily, even accepted in dicta for the purpose of argument that there is such a thing as an “intolerable violation of privacy.” In other words, this was as accommodating of the Franks contention as could be, and it was quickly rejected.
*This is the hypo used by the court:
Adam and Barbara are in a committed relationship. One evening, in their home, during a moment of passion, Adam asks Barbara if he can take a nude photograph of her. Barbara consents, but before Adam takes the picture, she tells him that he must not show the photograph to anyone else. Adam promises that he will never show the picture to another living soul, and takes a photograph of Barbara in front of a plain, white background with her breasts exposed.
A few months pass, and Adam and Barbara break up after Adam discovers that Barbara has had an affair. A few weeks later, Adam rediscovers the topless photo he took of Barbara. Feeling angry and betrayed, Adam emails the photo without comment to several of his friends, including Charlie. Charlie never had met Barbara and, therefore, does not recognize her. But he likes the photograph and forwards the email without comment to some of his friends, one of whom, unbeknownst to Charlie, is Barbara’s coworker, Donna. Donna recognizes Barbara and shows the picture to Barbara’s supervisor, who terminates Barbara’s employment.
SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM ADMIN MIKE…..
Happy 4-20 you guys!!! As I know, I have been a long time user of “medical” marijuana. So I was very glad when it because legal here in Southern California last year for recreational use.
Today is 4-20. Please take some time to enjoy this video:
Nazi / Jason Van Dyke lawsuit update…
May 3, 2018:
Many of you, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters, have asked about updates and documents in the $100 million LOLsuit that was filed by Texas Nazi attorney Jason Van Dyke against our American Hero & Honorary Admin of the BV Files, Thomas Retzlaff. Well we just got some stuff today in our In Box that we wish to share with you all.
VAN DYKE REQUESTS SANCTIONS AGAINST RETZLAFF
And what does Van Dyke do next???
That’s right, ladies and gentlemen. The “Mean Texas Attorney”, Jason Lee Van Dyke, turns into a pussy and runs off like the coward that he is.
Lastly, we will leave you folks with this little tidbit here. A document that is full of unexpected and very surprising Easter Eggs. But, honestly, these things ought to be no surprise to our long time readers, listeners, and supporters who have been following the drama of James McGibney vs. The Internets from the very beginning, nearly five years ago!
*** CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICE ***ECF 32 - D's reply in support to mtn to dismiss
Now where have we heard about Cook Island trusts before? Oh, wait a minute…
Some really exciting shit is about to go down. So be sure to keep coming back here for further updates!