Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.
— Louis Brandeis, Other People’s Money And How the Bankers Use It (1914), Chapter V (“What Publicity Can Do”).
In over 6 1/2 years of publishing the BV Files blog, we (your Admins), have always kind of assumed that you knew what this was about and why we do what we do here. But judging from a great deal of recent comments from you, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters, we thought we would spend a few moments to tell you.
Everything we spell out here below is information that has long been posted here if you would have just looked at the top of our website and clicked on the “About” or “Legal Disclaimer” links. So none of this is anything new – it’s just new to you because you never bothered to look or ask.
Blogging became perhaps the most popular new form of communication at the beginning of the 21st century. Its supporters trace a historical linkage to the pamphleteers of the Revolutionary War era who criticized the British and royal Colonial governments, often in anonymous tracts.
Blogging has created new challenges for the First Amendment
For its supporters, blogging fulfills the fundamental First Amendment principle of greater participation in the marketplace. Its detractors counter that the mob of blogs has little regard for accuracy and contributes to a more uncivil society. Whatever the truth, there is no question but that blogging has created new challenges for the First Amendment and the legal system. In that sense, it is a First Amendment fantasy or nightmare.
Publishing articles about matters of public debate and controversy is
at the very heart of the First Amendment.
We here at the BV Files publish articles about public figures (such as James McGibney – who we don’t like – and Philip Klein) and public officials (such as Jason Lee Van Dyke, leader of the Proud Boys white supremacist street gang) and those that work with and support them (such as Margaret Pickard of Las Vegas, NV, who helped facilitate McGibney’s revenge porn and sexual blackmail scheme for many, many years, while at the same time she is running for public office to be a family law judge – as well as failed Denton County, TX, judicial candidate Evan Stone, along with various individuals who have been publicly identified as being employees of McGibney’s ViaView, Inc. sexual blackmail company, both paid and volunteer.)
We also take time to comment on all of the various lawsuits going on between and amongst these individuals, as well as critique and criticize the various judges and their rulings, one way or the other.
We make efforts to inform the public and ask that you, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters help assist us in engaging in an economic and political boycott of all of these individuals and businesses. #TimesUp & #MeToo
The Constitution protects our right to do these things, and much, much more….
See Org. for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 US, 415, 417-419 (1971) (holding that First Amendment protection applied to the distribution of leaflets even where those leaflets accused an individual of racism, provided personal information about the person including his telephone number, and urged the recipients of the leaflets to contact him); see also NAACP v Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 US 886, 909-910 (1982) (holding that “[s]peech does not lose its protected character,” even where the speech involved publicly listing the names of individuals that did not participate in a boycott, which undoubtedly was meant to lead to unconsented contact with those individuals, so as to “persuade [them] to join the boycott through social pressure and the ‘threat’ of social ostracism.”).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us that almost all speech is protected other than “in a few limited areas.” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The constitutional principle overarching this blog — which certain vexatious litigants and dimwitted law enforcement officers either fail to understand or refuses to acknowledge — is that the First Amendment protects speech intended to cause embarrassment, insult, and outrage. See Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988) (“[C]itizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.”); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 55 (1988) (noting the court’s “longstanding refusal” to allow damages because speech may have an adverse emotional impact.) The First Amendment “may indeed serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest … or even stirs people to anger.” Terminello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949).
But your Admins of the BV Files are entitled to hold — and to caustically express — our opinions on various topics of public concern and public debate, or on topics involving public figures and/or public officials – and those that work for or with them!
Particularly apropos given recent events is this:
We cannot curtail a speaker’s First Amendment protection on the grounds that an otherwise permissible message might touch a nerve with an easily agitated audience.
Higgins v. Kentucky Sports Radio, LLC, 951 F.3d 728, 738 (6th Cir. 2020), citing Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 454 (2011) (picketers’ signs reading “God hates fags” and Fags doom nations” at a serviceman’s funeral were protected speech.)
At its very base, the exception to the First Amendment for incitement of imminent lawless action requires that the incitement be for actually illegal actions, not just inconvenient or aggravating ones. “There is no categorical ‘harassment exception’ to the First Amendment’s free speech clause.” Saxe v State College Area Sch Dist., 240 F3d 200, 204 (3rd Cir. 2001) (opinion by ALITO, J.).
For those of you new to all of this, the internet is a “vast and often unpleasant place.” Brintley v. Aeroquip Credit Union, 936 F.3d 489, 494 (6th Cir 2019).
Those who step into the public limelight, even temporarily, must face the hazard that sometimes comes with it. Should they find a commentator’s discussion of their foray into public life unsavory, they cannot easily “cry ‘Foul!’”
Higgins, 951 F.3d at 740, [citation omitted].
Blogs are online journals that started in the 1990s
In the late 1990s, a new medium developed on the Internet that increased the participatory nature of online expression. Computer programmer and author Jorn Barger coined the term weblog to refer to his website, which consisted of a series of links to news articles and other websites he found interesting and informative. Barger formed the term by combining the words website and logging.
In 1999 Peter Merholz, a writer, speaker, and computer expert, coined the term blog to refer to a weblog. The word caught on like wildfire, even prompting Merriam-Webster, the popular dictionary publisher, to name it the 2004 “Word of the Year.” It has since morphed into a verb — to blog — and now also forms part of a larger noun — blogosphere.
Blogs are online journals or diaries where individuals can post entries about the subjects that interest them most. Many bloggers link to other sites that contain interesting articles. Blogs, which exist on every topic imaginable, have become amazingly popular in a short space of time. Technorati.com claims to be tracking 112.8 million blogs and says that 175,000 blogs are created daily.
Are bloggers journalists?
In 2007, during the war in Iraq, the Pentagon for the first time permitted a blogger to cover the military just like any ordinary journalist.
Just like any mode of communication, blogs implicate many First Amendment issues. Some of the more common ones are whether bloggers who gather and report news are, for the purpose of shield laws, journalists; whether bloggers who post anonymous messages that other claim are defamatory should be able to hide their identity; whether public employees who blog can be disciplined by their employer consistent with the First Amendment; whether bloggers are subject or should be subject to campaign finance laws; and whether school officials violate the First Amendment when they punish students for the content of their blogs created off campus.
In 2007 the issue of bloggers as journalists surfaced in Congress as members of both houses considered a proposed federal shield law, the Free Flow of Information Act. Those who support bloggers contend that any blogger who engages in journalistic functions should be treated the same as writers in the print and broadcast world. Others contend that, unlike the established media, bloggers do not have built-in guards to ensure accuracy and thus are more likely to engage in a reckless disregard for the truth. On their face, some existing state shield laws seem to apply only to the established media.
HOWEVER ALL OF THAT CHANGED IN JANUARY 2014
Even though someone might not write for the “institutional press,” they’re entitled to all the protections the Constitution grants journalists.
The Ninth Circuit ruled as such in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox, a complicated case first decided in 2011. The court found that even though someone might not write for the “institutional press,” they’re entitled to all the protections the Constitution grants journalists.
“As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable,” 9th Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.
“Although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the Gertz rule applies beyond the institutional press, it has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers,” he wrote. In one case, he said, “the Court expressly noted that ‘we draw no distinction between the media respondents and’ a non-institutional respondent.”
Hurwitz goes on, extending journalistic protections to all those liberated of their institutions:
The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.”
Bloggers can be journalists (and journalists can be bloggers).
(See Apple v. Does.)
Bloggers are entitled to free speech.
(See OPG v. Diebold.)
Bloggers have the right to political speech.
Bloggers have the right to stay anonymous.
Bloggers have freedom from liability for hosting speech the same way other web hosts do.
The last bit is interesting to note because literally everything that we post here has first been vetted by our lawyers and, when we do post something, it is upon the advice and assistance of counsel with their assurances that everything being posted is entirely legal, within the law, and is protected under the First Amendment.
Many people don’t want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.
Or they may be worried about being sued by drug addled revenge pornographers or assassinated by violent, mentally ill Nazis. Who knows?
Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. As such, there can be little doubt that the First Amendment protects against compelled identification of anonymous speakers. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 166-67 (2002); Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999).
A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
[A]n author is generally free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity…. [A]n author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm., 514 U.S. 334, 341-42. (1995).
The Court observed that “anonymous speech is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.” Id. at 356.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius ” and “the Federal Farmer” spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor’s office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a “pamphleteer” or “a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 853 (1997); see also ApolloMedia Corp. v. Reno, 19 F. Supp. 1081 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (protecting anonymous denizens of www.annoy.com, a website “created and designed to annoy” legislators), aff’d by ApolloMedia Corp. v. Reno, 526 U.S. 1061 (1999).
When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.
— Our response to James McGibney’s numerous attempts at taking our blog down.
Before the truth will set you free, it will piss you off!
This blog is all about everything related to James McGibney (who we don’t like), the company ViaView, Inc., and their revenge pornography / blackmail websites Bullyville.com & Cheaterville.com. As well as McGibney’s white supremacist / Nazi side-kick Jason Lee Van Dyke, and their dim-witted side kick, Beaumont private investigator Philip Klein. We also offer our opinions about the quality of services offered to the public in the marketplace by ViaView, Inc., Klein Investigations & Consulting , and their employees / owners, as well as their attorneys.
If you have any story ideas on whatever McGibney / Klein / Van Dyke related subjects, please do not hesitate to let us know!
Also, if you feel we made a mistake or just gotten something plain wrong, let us know and give us the specifics so we can make it right.
If you truly want to be contacted, then give us legit contact info. If you don’t want to be contacted, but just offer only anonymous feedback, that’s okay. Just use obviously fake contact info so we don’t waste anytime trying to contact you. thanks!
We will be discussing the lawsuit styled James McGibney vs. The Internets, and we will be happy to offer some marginal legal advice to anyone being sued by McGibney (who we don’t like), as well as legal advice to those who want to sue him back. 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.
For those of you new to BV Files, here is a guide to help you understand the players, who we don’t like, and why:
- ViaView, Inc. is a company incorporated in Delaware that is owned by seven guys involved in the construction industry in Las Vegas, Nevada.
- Cheaterville.com is a revenge porn site that is run by ViaView. On Cheaterville people can post intimate photos and personal details about their ex-. If you find yourself posted on Cheaterville, you will be forced to pay them $499 (or more!) if you want to ransom back your photos and get the post removed.
- Bullyville.com is a hate speech / bullying website that is run by ViaView. While on the surface the website looks innocently enough, if you just barely scratch the surface by looking in its Articles section you will find some of the most vile and ugly hate speech one could ever imagine.
- James Alexander McGibney. He is born in Oct. 31, 1973, from the town of Monroe, NY, who lives in Round Rock, Texas, and is married to Christina Orduna McGibney (born in June 12, 1981 in the SF-Bay area), with whom he has three small boys with. He is a liar, a thief, and a criminal – seriously. He has falsely claimed to having an Executive Education from Harvard Business School. He does have a FAKE college degree from Chadwick University, a well known diploma mill since shut down by the Govt., and has filed for Ch. 7 bankruptcy at least twice in recent years.
The owners of ViaView consist of the following individuals:
- Dave Suder – West Coast President/CEO of KHS&S Contracting, who is also on the Board of Regents for Servite Catholic High School in Anaheim, CA. His son David Stone Suder is currently on trial in Orange County, CA for multiple counts of child rape involving VERY YOUNG CHILDREN set to begin in October 2016!
- Mark Caspers – Senior Partner & CEO at Las Vegas based Integrated Capital & Development Solutions (ICDS).
- Michael T. Carr – a man who calls himself “The Profit Prophet” (bet he didn’t see this coming?) and who is currently in hiding from his wife’s divorce lawyer.
- Wayne P. (Pat) Hibbs – Senior Vice President at Ledcor Construction Inc. in Las Vegas.
- Nikolas (Nick) Mamula – owner of a Las Vegas pre-fabricated stone products & tile company called T. Nicholas Co.
- Scott Corey Ryan – a lawyer licensed to practice law in Arizona, Illinois, and Nevada who is employed as Senior Vice President & General Counsel for Tutor Perini Building Group in Phoenix, AZ.
- James McGibney – serial resume fraudster & deadbeat with TWO Chapter 7 bankruptcies under his belt.
Q: What is an LOLsuit and why do you constantly refer to them here?
A: An LOLsuit is a portmanteau from taking “LOL” (Laugh Out Loud) and combining it with “lawsuit.” Thus, an LOLsuit is a joke lawsuit, or a lawsuit that is a joke. Note that it is a very real lawsuit filed in a real court. But the premise behind the lawsuit, or the legal reasoning expressed therein, is a total joke (i.e. makes one LOL when reading it).
We can also discuss the many personal and professional failings of Mr. McGibney, too (who we don’t like – seriously). Psst – We heard that he has a really small penis! But don’t say anything to him ’cause he’s really self conscious about it (and he’ll probably sue you if you tell anyone we told you this).
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, Jo Jo, Lane, or Lora (all people whom McGibney has accused us of being).
Our Death Threats Policy:
Death threats are not only allowed, but they are encouraged! The more horrific and horrible the better – seriously! In fact, we just might post some ourselves.
But if you start spamming the forum and/or posting something that seems stupid, ridiculous, or unfunny, it just might be ‘moderated.’ So try to be lulzy, m’kay?
Obviously, this is satire. But it makes a point that user generated content is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which preempts state law) no matter how horrific and/or harrowing – or stupid – it may be.
Regressive right and illiberal left unite to quash online speech.
Section 230 is “just about the most libertarian, free speech law on the books,” in the words of its original sponsor, Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.). Is it any wonder that many politicians are trying to kill it?
From Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz to Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris, both the right and the left have been blasting this foundational internet law for allegedly enabling “big tech” bias and a host of horrific crimes. But what it actually enables is for all of us plebes to talk without Washington having the final say.
SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING LEGAL / LEO REQUESTS:
Please feel free to say ANYTHING that you want one way or the other about the topic, or any other McGibney related topic (because we don’t like him). No comments will be moderated! We would suggest using a VPN / TOR or something so no one can know what your IP is. See https://www.torproject.org/
Additionally, this website is being run off of a personal computer from a location overseas in a country that DOES NOT subscribe to The Hague Convention; thus, any of your TROs / Court Orders, subpoenas, TOS complaints, DMCA take-downs will be completely and utterly ignored. But thanks for trying anyways!
Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.
— U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert, Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).
To report any abuse or violation of your personal rights or privacy, please print this form out and mail it to our Attorney of Record for appropriate processing.
J. Noble Daggett
Attorney at Law
398 Walnut Drive
Ventura, CA 93003-2036
(Or you can just mail it to Jeff Dorrell at the Hanszen Laporte law firm in Houston, Texas – seriously!)
All content on this blog, being a mixture of parody, satire, and lame humor, is for entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously.
When it comes to parody, the law requires a reasonable reader standard, not a “most gullible person on Facebook” standard. The First Amendment does not depend on whether everyone is in on the joke. Neither is it bothered by public disapproval, whether tepid or red-hot. Novak v. City of Parma, 932 F. 3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019).
Satire is a centuries-old type of literature that uses humor and imitation to attack and ridicule individuals’ moral and character flaws, such as vice, unfairness, stupidity or vanity. Satire is one of the most effective means of criticism. Since the time of the ancient Greeks, it has been used to lampoon the comfortable, the rich, the famous and, most important from a constitutional standpoint, the powerful.
A parody is also an attack on folly, but it takes the form of a contemptuous imitation of an existing artistic production — usually a serious work of literature, music, artwork or film — for satirical or humorous purposes. Or even photoshopped documents or pictures to present them in new and interesting ways.
Satire and parody have served for generations as a means of criticizing public figures, exposing political injustice, communicating social ideologies, and pursuing such artistic ends as literary criticism. Satirists usually find themselves subjected in turn to criticism, contempt and, sometimes, lawsuits.
The key distinction between satire and defamation is that satire is not meant to be believed by the audience. Satire is biting, critical, and designed to attack, often with malice. It is almost always false.
For example, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous court, stated that a parody depicting the Reverend Jerry Falwell as a drunken, incestuous son could not be defamation since it was an obvious parody, not intended as a statement of fact. To find otherwise, the Court said, was to endanger First Amendment protection for every artist, political cartoonist, and comedian who used satire to criticize public figures.
McGibney and his attorneys Jay Leiderman, John Morgan, and Evan Stone like to:
- Quote vast amounts of shaky information to make their Grand Civil Conspiracy Theories appear well-supported.
And they like to:
- Make their accusations as outlandish as possible.
This is precisely what the McGibney Gang members and attorneys did with regards to Retzlaff, Rauhauser, Lipton, Dorrell, Walker, and all the rest of their INNOCENT victims.
Our nation’s long-held First Amendment protection for parody does not rise and fall with whether a few people are confused. Instead, we must apply a “reasonable reader” test. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56-57, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988)
Speech that “could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts” is a parody, even if “patently offensive.” Id. The test is not whether one person, or even ten people, or even one hundred people are confused by the BV Files. Indeed, the genius of parody is that it comes close enough to reality to spark a moment of doubt in the reader’s mind before she realizes the joke. “The germ of parody lies in the definition of the Greek parodeia … as a song sung alongside another.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 580, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).
And masterful parody may skirt that line even closer.
Benjamin Franklin’s 1784 satirical essay in the Journal de Paris came so close to the truth that it anticipated reality before it happened. Franklin spoke of the benefits of daylight and joked that the French should consider waking up earlier to save money on candles. In his tongue-in-cheek proposal, Franklin recommended several measures for the implementation of his plan. He suggested that: “Every morning, as soon as the sun rises, let all the bells in every church be set ringing; and if that is not sufficient?, let cannon be fired in every street, to wake the sluggards effectually, 428*428 and make them open their eyes to see their true interest.” Benjamin Franklin, An Economical Project, Letter to the Editor of the Journal of Paris (1784). Through his satire, Franklin predicted the reality of daylight saving time, which would come a century and a half later.
And a parody need not spoil its own punchline by declaring itself a parody.
“Parody serves its goals whether labeled or not, and there is no reason to require parody to state the obvious (or even the reasonably perceived).” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 583 n.17, 114 S.Ct. 1164. Imagine if The Onion were required to disclaim that parodical headlines like the following are, in reality, false: Presidential Debate Sidetracked By Booker, De Blasio Arguing About Best Place In Lower Manhattan To Get Tapas, or, John Bolton Urges War Against the Sun After Uncovering Evidence It Has Nuclear Capabilities. News in Brief, The Onion (June 26, 2019), https://politics.theonion.com/presidential-debate-sidetracked-by-booker-de-blasio-ar-1835870332; News in Brief, The Onion (June 10, 2019), https://politics.theonion.com/johnbolton-urges-war-against-the-sun-after-uncovering-1835805360.
If true, this is not a crime. Sorry to disappoint you, Ron.
The law of parody does not require us to strain credulity so far. And that is not because everyone always understands the joke. Susanna Kim, All the Times People Were Fooled by The Onion, ABC News (June 1, 2015), https://abcnews.go.com/International/times-people-fooled-onion/story?id=31444478.
[And if all of that looks like it was written by a group of really smart and super aggressive First Amendment lawyers, it was – 100% VERIFIED!]
By the way, speaking of parody, satire and lame humor….
One of your American Heroes & Honorary Admins of the BV Files, Deb Armintor, may have made history Tuesday, November 3, when she received 27,587 votes in her reelection bid against Rick Baria for at-large Place 5 on the Denton City Council!!
A review of Denton municipal election results from 1996 to 2020 shows that no candidate has come close to Armintor’s total on Election Day. In 1996, Denton’s population was about 78,000. Today, it’s more than 141,000.
A University of North Texas professor, Armintor received 55.9% of the vote. Baria, a land planner, received 44% of the vote (21,730). The combined 49,317 votes are the second-most cast in any of the city races. The first is for mayor, with 51,129.