Boogaloo Movement, Brittany Retzlaff, Brittany Retzlaff sex video, Christina McGibney, Christopher Doyon, Deric Lostutter, EternalBlue, James McGibney, James McGibney Bullyville, James McGibney pedophile, James McGibney Rosendin Electric, John Colley Rosendin Electric, Justin Liverman, Kathy Colley, Matthew Keys, Proud Boys, Revenge Porn, Shadow Brokers, The Proud Boys, Thomas Retzlaff, Tom and Brittany Retzlaff, Tom Retzlaff, Van Dyke v. Retzlaff
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!!
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:
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.
FOR ALL THE EMPLOYEES AT ROSENDON ELECTRIC THAT ARE COMING HERE TODAY, THIS IS WHAT YOUR SENIOR DIRECTOR OF CYBERSECURITY & COMPLIANCE LIKES TO POST ON SOCIAL MEDIA IN HIS SPARE TIME!!!
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.
OR you can use this “service”
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.
AND WHAT DOES BRITTANY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL OF THIS!?! CHECK IT OUT!!
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!!
Why did McGibney pick a fight with Retzlaff? Because he is a dumb ass, that is why.
KEEP 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:
- Cause No. 067-270669-14; McGibney v. Retzlaff; in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas (filed February 19, 2014);
- 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,
- 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
THANKS FOR PLAYING!
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:
*** POSTED BY MCGIBNEY ON HIS BULLYVILLE WEBSITE ***
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:
*** CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICE ***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.
SO HOW DOES THE TEXAS CITIZENS PARTICIPATION ACT WORK???
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!
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!
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!!
*** CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICE ***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!!
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!
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: