Motion To Quash MissAnonNews Analyzed

1
Unnamed Doe
Filing Pro Se
AmeliaSanaka2013@yandex.com
4
5
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Via View / James McGibney
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff,
vs.
Thomas Retzlaff
Defendant
12
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE No. 114CH005460

UNNAMED DOE /s/ @OccupyRebellion,
@MissAnonNews, and @MissAnonNews_
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO FILE RECORD
ANONYMOUSLY
13
UNNAMED DOES NOTICE OF MOTION AND
14
MOTION TO FILE A RECORD UNDER SEAL
15
TO PLAINTIFF AND ITS ATTORNEYS:
16
Please take notice UNNAMED DOE a/k/a @MissAnonNews, @OccupyRebellion, and
17
@MissAnonNews_ will move the Court for an order allowing the signature and true name on
18
Does declaration in support of a MOTION TO QUASH A 3RD PARTY SUBPOENA pursuant
19
to C.C.P. 425.16 to be filed under seal.
20
This motion will be made pursuant to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and
21
Rules 243.1 and 243.2 of the California Rules of Court, on the grounds that defendants
22
overriding First Amendment right to speak anonymously supports sealing the record and the
23
other requirements in Rule 243.1(d) are met.
24
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
25
@MISSANONNEWS, @MISSANONNEWS_ AND @OCCUPYREBELLION are
26
screen names under which UNNAMED DOE (Movant) posted messages on Twitter, Inc
27
(Twitter) relating to the plaintiff. UNNAMED DOE is filing a MOTION TO QUASH A 3RD
Page 1
PARTY SUBPOENA relating to the Twitter accounts under these screen names..
Movant was notified by Twitter that Via View/ James McGibney (Plaintiffs) were
seeking to compel Twitter to reveal the identities, basic subscriber information and all manner of
online correspondence (tweets and private messages) exchanged with accounts identified as
@OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews, and @MissAnonNews_ . Unless this Movant can
proceed anonymously until the issues surrounding this subpoena are resolved, the Court's rulings
on the subpoena will essentially be moot because the Plaintiffs will have succeeded in obtaining
through Court Procedure that which they may not be entitled to obtain based on the courts final
ruling.
10
Movant acknowledges that her request to file Anonymously and Under Seal is unusual
11
for a Pro Se 3rd party in a lawsuit. Unfortunately the courts have not clearly delineated
12
procedures to address this issue. As public figures, disgruntled by anonymous criticisms on the
13
internet, file more legal actions best described as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
14
Participation, more defendants will find themselves in the same untenable position this Movant
15
finds herself in. There are good reasons why states around the country are enacting Anti-SLAPP
16
legislation like Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16
17
Because the Plaintiffs in this case have filed lawsuits and other actions in three (3) courts
18
and in two (2) states in less than 60 days, Movant is met with the undue burden of finding legal
19
representation in an unimaginably short period of time at great cost. The swift legal actions taken
20
by the Plaintiffs can only be interpreted as legal maneuvers to squash Movants 1st Amendment
21
rights to express concerns over public matters.
22
Allowing this MOTION TO FILE ANONYMOUSLY AND UNDER SEAL in no way
23
violate Plaintiffs rights. If Movants MOTION TO QUASH A 3RD PARTY SUBPOENA is
24
granted, Plaintiffs have no basis for requiring disclosure of defendants true identity. If the
25
motion is denied, Plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice as he will be entitled to the records produced
26
by Twitter regarding Movants identity.
27
As Movants MOTION TO QUASH A 3RD PARTY SUBPOENA asserts, Plaintiffs have
Page 2
not demonstrated a substantial and factual showing of their claims against Movant and
should not be allowed to compel disclosure of subscriber information associated with the Twitter
accounts at the center of the subpoena.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the First Amendment right to speak
anonymously. (Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999) 119 S. Ct. 636,
645-646; McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm. (1995) 514 U.S. 334; Talley v. California (1960)
362 U.S. 60.) Anonymous or pseudonymous writings have played an important role in our
history; the ratification of Our Constitution was heatedly defended through the pseudonymous
political advocacy of the Federalist Papers. As the Supreme Court said in McIntyre:
10
[A]n author is generally free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her
11
true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear
12
of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or
13
merely by a desire to preserve as much of ones privacy as possible.
14
Whatever the motivation may be, ... the interest in having anonymous works
15
enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest
16
in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an authors
17
decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions
18
or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of
19
speech protected by the First Amendment. . . . Under our Constitution,
20
anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an
21
honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent.
22
(McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341-342, 357)
23
The United States Supreme Court has held that a court order to compel production of
24
individuals identities in a situation that would threaten the exercise of fundamental rights is
25
subject to the closest scrutiny. (NAACP v. Alabama (1958) 357 U.S. 449, 461.)
26
27
These rights are fully applicable to speech on the Internet. The Supreme Court has treated
the Internet as a fully protected medium for public discourse, which places in the hands of any
Page 3
individual who wants to express his or her views the opportunity, at least in theory, to
reach other members of the public hundreds or even thousands of miles away, at virtually no
cost; consequently, the Court has held that First Amendment protections are fully applicable to
communications over the Internet. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) 521 U.S. 844
Several lower court decisions have further upheld the right to communicate anonymously
over the Internet. In Krinsky v. Doe 6, H030767 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2008), the California
Court of Appeals , 6th Appellate Division, ruled that proper focus instead should be on
providing an injured party a means of redress without compromising the legitimate right of the
Internet user to communicate freely with others in essence requiring that Plaintiffs make a
10
prima facie showing before disclosure of a speakers identity.
11
California Rules of Court Rule 243.2(a) and (b) provide that a record may be filed under
12
seal only under a court order granted pursuant to a noticed motion and facts sufficient to justify
13
the sealing. Rule 243.1(d) provides that the court may order that a record be filed under seal if it
14
expressly finds that: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public
15
access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial
16
probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4)
17
The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the
18
overriding interest.
19
Respectfully submitted Anonymously by UNNAMED DOE,
20
/s/ @MissAnonNews, @MissAnonNews_, @OccupyRebellion .
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Page 4
Unnamed Doe
Filing Pro Se
4
5
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Via View / James McGibney
8
9
10
Plaintiff,
vs.
Thomas Retzlaff
Defendant
11
12
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE No. 114CH005460

UNNAMED DOE /s/
@OccupyRebellion,
@MissAnonNews, and
@MissAnonNews_
MOTION TO QUASH 3rd PARTY
SUBPOENA
14
MOTION TO QUASH 3RD PARTY SUBPOENA
15
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) and California Civil Procedure
16
1985.3(g) , I (Movant) respectfully request the court to quash Plaintiffs 3rd party subpoena as
17
it relates to my Twitter accounts @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews, and
18
@MissAnonNews_because the subpoena violates my First Amendment right to speak
19
anonymously.
20
Movant respectfully requests that she be allowed to file this motion to quash this
21
subpoena without revealing any personal information. Unless this Movant can proceed
22
anonymously until the issues surrounding this subpoena are resolved , the Court's rulings on the
23
subpoena will essentially be moot because the Plaintiffs will have succeeded in obtaining
24
through Court Procedure that which they may not be entitled to obtain based on the courts final
25
ruling.
26
27
INTRODUCTION
On April 3rd, 2014, the Movant received 3 emails (see EXHIBIT A) from social media
Page 1
service provider Twitter Inc. (Twitter) stating that Via View/James McGibney (Plaintiffs)
had issued a subpoena (see EXHIBIT B) requiring Twitter to reveal the identities, basic
subscriber information and all manner of online correspondence (tweets and private messages)
exchanged with accounts identified as @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews, and
@MissAnonNews_ (Movants Three Twitter Accounts) during a time period these accounts
were participating in public discussions and spirited debate on a variety of subjects including
opinions on public figures like Kate Gosselin, the plaintiff James McGibney, and his company
Bullyville.
Without proving that these twitter accounts have in any way infringed on their rights, the
10
Plaintiffs seek subscriber information to reveal the identity of the operators of
11
@OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews, and @MissAnonNews_ in order to intimidate and
12
silence critics. This violates the protected right to engage in anonymous speech. .
STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
13
14
The question before the Court is whether the Plaintiffs should be permitted to use the
15
procedures of this Court to force disclosure of the identities of individuals who spoke
16
anonymously on Twitter, where the Plaintiffs has made no showing that the anonymous speakers
17
acted unlawfully or in any way violated the Plaintiffs rights.
BACKGROUND
18
19
On February 19th, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed suit in The District Court of Tarrant County,
20
67th Judicial District Case # 67-270669-14 against MISSANONNEWS for defamation,
21
defamation per se, harassment, stalking, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious
22
interference with business relationship, and business disparagement. The other named defendants
23
in that suit are THOMAS RETZLAFF, LORA LUSHER, JENNIFER D' ALLESANDRO,
24
NEAL RAUHAUSER, JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, JANE DOE 4, AND JANE
25
DOE 5. (see EXHIBIT C)
26
27
On March 17th, 2014, the Plaintiffs have also filed suit in United States District Court,
Northern District Of California , San Jose Division Case # 5-14-cv-01059 against a different set
of defendants THOMAS RETZLAFF, NEAL RAUHAUSER, LANE LIPTON, and DOES 1-5
Page 2
for tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective
economic advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and public
disclosure invasion of privacy. (see EXHIBIT D)
4
5
6
On the same day, March 17th, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed Civil Order to Show Cause
Temporary Restraining Order on which this subpoena is based. (see EXHIBIT E)
On March 18th, 2014, the defendant Neal Rauhauser filed his ORIGINAL ANSWER,
COUNTERCLAIMS, JURY DEMAND, AND REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE. (see
EXHIBIT F)
On March 20th , 2014,prior to any action taken by Plaintiffs attorney, defendant Neal
10
Rauhauser filed a MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ACT
11
against the Plaintiffs in The District Court of Tarrant County, 67th Judicial District Case #
12
67-270669-14. The filing of this motion stays all discovery in regards to the Lawsuit filed in
13
Texas until the Court rules on the motion. (see EXHIBIT G)
14
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed a MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
15
Case # 67-270669-14 in The District Court of Tarrant County, 67th Judicial District. (See
16
EXHIBIT H)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
17
18
The right to anonymous speech is older than the United States and pamphleteering is
19
considered the original social media. Ordinary citizens across the colonies distributed
20
pamphlets to disseminate ideas of often pseudonymous writers to energize the nascent
21
independence movement. Later, the debate regarding the ratification of the Constitution was
22
largely held in a series of articles penned by anonymous writers: the Federalist Papers,
23
advocating for the ratification of the Constitution, was written by a group of writers under the
24
pen name Publius, while the Anti-Federalist papers were penned by the pseudonomous writers
25
Cato, Brutus, Centinel, and Federal Farmer.
26
27
The Supreme Court explained in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844,
853, 870 (1997),
Page 3
From a publishers standpoint, [the Internet] constitutes a vast platform from
which to address and hear from a world-wide audience of millions of readers,
viewers, researchers and buyers. . . . Through the use of chat rooms, any person
with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther
than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of web pages, . . . the same
individual can become a pamphleteer.
Full 1st Amendment protections extend to communications over the internet, including
social media websites, and Courts have long recognized that speakers have a 1st Amendment
right to anonymous expression of their opinions.
10
Twitter, a social media website, is a micro-blogging network of individuals that post short
11
messages limited to 140 characters (Tweets). Real-time information sharing, the immediacy of
12
interactions and the ability to connect with like-minded people to freely express opinions on
13
various topics are some of the reasons Twitter is so popular. The capacity to express those ideas
14
in anonymously is another. Twitter users can choose to use his/her real name or select
15
pseudonyms. Those who choose pseudonyms do so to participate in uninhibited debates without
16
fear of real life reprisals.
17
The Plaintiffs have their own account @Bullyville to promote their website
18
Bullyville.com where they promote Sometimes you need to be a bully to beat a bully as their
19
mission. Their Tweets are controversial and aggressive in keeping with the stated mission of their
20
brand. ( see EXHIBIT I, J,K)
21
In 2013, a group of Twitter users began discussing their opinions about a a public figure
22
(Reality TV star). The Plaintiffs disagreed with these users and joined in the debates. As the
23
debates became more heated, the Plaintiffs stepped up their campaign released these users
24
identities, and announced this on various national media outlets while their Twitter account
25
posted private emails. In some cases, according to the media reports, the Plaintiffs went so far as
26
to call these twitter users employers. Some allegedly lost their jobs. According to other news
27
reports, the Plaintiffs claimed to file a class action lawsuit against these twitter users. ( see
EXHIBIT L, M, N)
Page 4
Movant began defending these users by tweeting about the harassment , expressing her
opinion that they are entitled to express their opinions about a public figure. In return,
@Bullyville began what became a sustained campaign to stalk and harass the Movant, even
paying people to investigate the Movants identity in an effort to silence the Movant, leading to
the public display of personal information of four different people misidentified as the Movant.
( see EXHIBIT O, P, Q,R, S, T, U,V)
On April 3rd, 2014, the Movant was contacted by Twitter regarding this subpoena which
plainly states that it is demanding Twitter produce records on Movants Three Twitter Accounts
(which are now inactive) in order to gather evidence in support of the allegation that Defendant
10
Thomas Reztlaff is the human operator behind most or all of these pseudonymous accounts.
11
This directly contradicts statements the Plaintiffs make in the suit filed in United States District
12
Court, Northern District Of California , San Jose Division Case # 5-14-cv-01059, in which the
13
Plaintiffs allege that Movants Three Twitter Accounts as well as the BVFiles Wordpress site are
14
on information and belief shared by defendants Neal Rauhauser and Lane Lipton.
15
The statements in each of these petitions filed on the same day by the same lawyer
16
on behalf of the same Plaintiffs wildly contradict each other and contradict still another
17
set of assertions made by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in Tarrant County, Texas, in
18
which it is allege(d) that Defendant, Missanonnews can be served with process at their
19
place(s) of residence. This Defendant's true identity is being withheld due to a current
20
FBI inquiry.. Plaintiffs offered no proof that there is an actual investigation by the
21
Federal Bureau of Investigation and mostly likely it is just another instance in an
22
established pattern of harassment by the Plaintiffs against the Movant.
23
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
24
The First Amendment protects anonymous Internet speech, speech about matters of
25
public concern and public figures.
26
Plaintiffs Must Make a Preliminary Showing Prior to Obtaining Movants Identity.
27
Plaintiffs Have Failed to Make the Showing Required.
ARGUMENT
Page 5
There is a growing consensus among courts that plaintiffs must show good cause for
violating a defendants 1st Amendment right to engage in anonymous speech by making a
substantial and factual showing of their claim prior to allowing discovery into the identity of an
anonymous Internet critic. .
In Krinsky v. Doe 6, H030767 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2008), the California Court of
Appeals , 6th Appellate Division, ruled that proper focus instead should be on providing an
injured party a means of redress without compromising the legitimate right of the Internet user to
communicate freely with others in essence requiring that Plaintiffs make a prima facie
showing before disclosure of a speakers identity.
10
Plaintiffs present a series of Tweets made by @MissAnonNews account as evidence of
11
defamation. Within the context of the heated debate over Plaintiffs and associates behavior in
12
this case, Plaintiffs have made no such showing that any of those Tweets rise to the level of
13
defamation. In fact these Tweets in question clearly fall within the scope of communication
14
made on a matter of public concern involving public figures.
15
Mr James McGibney, a plaintiff, is a limited purpose public figure who has thrust himself
16
to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues
17
involved as defined by Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) and there can be
18
no doubt that the Reality TV Star at the center of this controversy is a public figure. New York
19
Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964) compels Plaintiffs to prove actual malice
20
before any of these declarations can be deemed defamatory.
21
Offensive comments arent necessarily defamatory. In Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207
22
(2011), the US Supreme Court held that the target of free speech did not have to be a public
23
figure for the speech to be protected if it applies to matters of public concern. Plaintiffs
24
controversial commercial websites are definitely matters of public concern and its hard to
25
imagine the Movants speech is anything other than constitutionally protected speech.
26
27
The United States Constitution recognizes each individuals right to participate in

discussions on matter of public concern and to express freely their opinions and criticisms in
Page 6
public forums. Free speech and the free expression of opinions is so powerful that tactics devised
to curtail these right have been categorized under the label Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation. Plaintiffs have availed themselves of so many of these maneuvers for the sole
purpose of silencing their critics but have made failed to make their prima facie case required to
obtain this Movants identity.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs claims cannot survive even a preliminary review. Their rushed attempts to
invoke the subpoena power of This Court based on a complaint devoid of any factual allegations
while simultaneously engaging this Movant as a defendant in similar litigation in Texas suggests
10
that the true goal in filing these complaints is simply to expose the identity of the Movant and
11
intimidate her into silence.
12
The motion to quash the subpoena should be granted.
13
Respectfully submitted Anonymously
14
by UNNAMED DOE,
15
/s/ @MissAnonNews, @MissAnonNews_, @OccupyRebellion
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Page 7
MAR-20-20 14 ( THU l 14: 33
p 004/005
ATTACHMENT 3
Plaintiff James McGibney seeks subscriber information, tweets, and direct messltgea ror
the tbllowing accounts, most of which have been suspended:
1.
@MrTexxxan, URL https;//twiller.com/mrtexxxun
2.
@lKellySwift4, URL https://twitter.com/kellysvvift4
3.
@DoxintLMcGibney, URL https://twitter.com/doxing_mcgibney
4.
@PccloCaptain, URL https://twittcr.com/pcdocaptain
S.
@bright_Anon, URL https;//twitter.com/bright_unon
6.
@BV_Truther, URL https://twitter.com/bv _truther
7.
@.BV_Truth, URL https://twitter.com/bv_truth
8.
@Klansnmnn, URL https:/ltwitter.com/klansmann
9.
@OccupyRebellion, URL https://twitter.com/occupyrebellion
10.
@MissAnonNcws. URL https://twittcr.com/missanonncws
11.
@MissAnonNews_, URL https:l/twitter.com/missanonnews_
TI1e purpose of this .request is twolbld: (I)
to
gather evidence in support of the
substantive allegations of harassment, defamation, and interference with. business opportunity in

this ctwe, and (2) to gather evidence in support of the allegation that Oefendant Thomtw Reztlaff
Is the human operator behind most or all of these pseudonymous accounts. The infbm1ation
sought includes, but is not limited to:
1.
All basic subscriber information for each named account, including date/time of
creation, name,. location, TP address, e-mail address, phone number, etc.
2.
All public tweets, private tweets, and direct messages sent to or From @MrTexxan
From October 1, 2013 .Lmtil the account was suspended.
3.
All public tweets, private tweets, and direct messages sent to or from
'
@KellySwift4 from November 1, 2013 until the account was su.spended.

4.
All pllblic tweets, private tweets, and direct messages sent to
OJ'
from
@Doxing_McGibney from. November I, 2013 until the account was suspended.
MAR-20-20 14 ( THU l 14: 33
5.
p 005/005
All public tweets, private tweets, and direct messages sent to or fTom
@PedoCaptain from November 1, 2013 until the account was suspended.
6.
@bright_Anon tram January 1, 2014 until the account was suspended.
7.
All public tweets, private twc~::ts, and direct messages sent to or trom
@BV_Truther from January 1, 2014 until the
S.
acco~ml
was suspend~d.
All public tweets, private tweets, and direct messages sent to or Jrom @BV_Tntth
from February I, 2014 to the present.
9.
All public tweets, private tweets, and d.irect messages sent to or from
@Occupy Rebellion !'rom June L 2014 through December 1, 2014.
I 0.
@MissAnonNcws !rom August I. 2013 until the account was suspended.
11.
All public tweets, private tweets, and direct messages sent to or fTom
@MissAnonNews_ nom January 1, 2014 until the account was suspended.
12.
All TP address logs tbr the accounts during the times spcciicd for each account.
13.
All mctadata, including location information, for tweets specified for each
account.
No.
JAMES MCGIBNEY AND

VIAVIEW, INC.
vs.
067-270669-14
THOMAS RETZLAFF, LORA LUSHER,

JENNIFER D'ALESSANDRO, NEAL
RAUHAUSER, MISSANONNEWS,
JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE
DOE 3, JANE DOE 4 AND JANE DOE 5
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

To THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiffs, JAMES McGlBNEY AND VIAVIEW, INC. file Plaintiffs'
Original Petition and Request for Injunctive Relief complaining of THOMAS
RETZLAFF, LORA LUSHER, JENNIFER D'ALESSANDRO, NEAL RAUHAUSER,
MISSANONNEWS, JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, JANE DOE 4 AND
JANE DOE 5, Defendants, and for a cause of action would show the
following:
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff, James McGibney, is an individual appearing in Court
through his attorney of record.

2.
Plaintiff, ViaView, Inc. is a corporation appearing in Court through
067-270669-14
its attorney of record.

3.
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
Defendant, Thomas Retzlaff is an individual residing in Tarrant
County, Texas and can be served with process at his place of residence.
4.
Defendant, Lora Lusher is an individual who resides in Petaluma,
California, who can be served with process at her place of residence.

5.
Defendant, Jennifer D'Alessandro is an individual who can be served
with process at her place of residence, 4373 Lake Ave., Lockport, NY

14094.
6.
Defendant, Neal Rauhauser, can be served with process through
Mark D ..Rasch, Esq., 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.

20036.
7.
Defendant, Missanonnews can be served with process at their
place(s) of residence. This Defendant's true identity is being withheld due

to a current FBI inquiry.
8.
Defendant, Jane Doe 1 is an unknown Defendant. Mter Plaintiff
determines the identity and location of Jane Doe 1, Plaintiff shall amend
the Petition to identify the Defendant and provide an address for issuance
and service of citation.
9.

2
067-270669-14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
10.
the Petit~on to identify the Defendant and provide an address for issuance
11.
12.
the
Petit~on
to identify the Defendant and provide an address for issuance

DISCOVERY PLAN
13.
Discovery should be conducted under Level 3 and Plaintiffs request
the entry of a scheduling order. Pursuant to Texas law, Plaintiffs would

show that they estimate the total amount of damages that they seek in
3
067-270669-14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
this case against Defendants, jointly and severally, exceeds $1,000,000.00.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14.
The amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this
Court. Venue is proper in this Court, since a substantial portion of the

acts or omissions occurred in Tarrant County, Texas.
FACTS AND CAUSES OF ACTION
15.
Defendant Thomas Retzlaff ("Retzlaff') has engaged in a course of
conduct designed to cause the maximum amount of emotional, personal

and financial harm to the Plaintiff James McGibney ("McGibney"), and
the maximum amount of financial and business harm to the Plaintiff
ViaView, Inc. ("ViaView"). Specifically, Retzlafl' is a blogger who uses
multiple aliases for the purpose of targeting individuals, corporations and
organizations that he dislikes, and then Retzlaff terrorizes those
individuals online, and tries to destroy the targeted corporation or entity,
which in this case is ViaView. The behavior of Retzlaff includes such
things as posting death threats, making terroristic threats, cyber-stalking
and engaging in other misconduct that are repeatedly in violation of Texas
Penal Co.des. Retzlaff is also involved with several "revenge porn" sites,
including www.texxxan.com and www.myex.com. Threats against
4
067-270669-14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
McGibney by Retzlaff and other Defendants include but are not limited to
the following: (1) "I am simply amazed that this BullyVille, guy, James
McGibney, is still alive. If I was listed on his website, I would put a bullet
in his head.
It is as simple as that. His home address has been posted
online. And he makes scheduled public appearances. One of these days

James is going to post the name of the wrong guy and it will cost him, and
his family, their lives."; (2) "I would like to bury a hatchet right in
[McGibney's] f_cking damn face."; (3) "It will be really funny seeing
someone post pies of ur wife Christina when she is shopping at Smith's
with ur two kids."; and (4) "I have Twitter and a little bit of me dies
everytime I login. I want to kill most people. Starting with Bullyville.
F _eking cesspool." Retzlaff is also a convicted criminal, having been
imprisoned from 1998 through 2004, for sexual assault, burglary and
unlawful possession of a weapon.
There are ongoing criminal
investigations into Retzlaff, and his harassing activities have been

enjoined by several courts through restraining orders. In the process of
engaging in his misbehavior, Retzlaff uses multiple aliases and multiple
"pen names," including "LJS," "Scott Jewels," "Molly Santucci," "Kelly
Swift," Twitter alias "@doxing_mcgibney," "James Smith," Twitter alias
5
067-270669-14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
"@mrtexxxan," "Fred," "DickHurtz," "J ames.Smith871 003@gmail.com,"
Twitter alias "@PedoCaptian," Twitter alias "@bright_Anon," Twitter alias

"@BV_Truther," "MisterSmith," and possibly other aliases.
Plaintiffs
reasonably anticipate that Defendant Retzlaff will continue in the future

to create multiple aliases to harass, stalk, terrorize and defame Plaintiffs
as much as possible.
16.
The other Defendants, Lora Lusher, Jennifer D'Alessandro (who was
arrested in 2012 for unlawful computer access), Neal Rauhauser,

Missanonnews, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4 and Jane
Doe 5 have joined with Defendant Retzlaff in this pattern of cyberstalking, cyber-terrorism, defamation and harassment of the Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are suing these individual Defendants (the identify
of some of them is currently unknown but they are being sued for
purposes of demonstrating due diligence to avoid any statute of
limitations defense), for the same, indivisible misconduct as Retzlaffs
misconduct at issue in this case. Plaintiffs shall be seeking joint and
several liability against all of the Defendants, including the unknown
Defendants after those unknown Defendants' identities are discovered),
because all the Defendants have acted jointly, with a unity of purpose,
6
067-270669-14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
pursuant to a common schmne or plan, and their wrongdoings are

indivisible among themselves.
17.
Plaintiffs, therefore, sue all Defendants for this pattern of
defamation, harassment and stalking that includes defamation per se and

also repeatedly violates Texas Penal Codes. For example but without
limitation, Defendants have made multiple terroristic threats against
McGibney, in violation of Texas Penal Code 22.07. Defendants' threats
include threats of murder or actual killing.
Further, Defendants are
engaging in cyber-stalking and harassment of McGibney, and also of

ViaView, in violation of Texas Penal Codes prohibiting stalking and
harassment, 42.07 & 42.072. Additionally, Defendants have engaged
in blackmail and extortion, to cause as much possible harm to Plaintiffs
as possible. None of Defendants' postings at issue constitute opinions that
are protected under the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution. Instead, all of Defendants' postings are in fact verbal acts
that are specifically intended to harass, intimidate, annoy, cause worry,
terrorize, violate Texas Penal Codes, and impose as much mental anguish
and pecuniary harm as possible upon McGibney and as much pecuniary
and business harm as possible upon ViaView.
7
067-270669-14
18.
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
Plaintiffs, therefore, sue all Defendants for the torts of defamation
and defamation per se, that include without limitation false allegations
that McGibney is a "pedophile" that Defendants published via Twitter.
Notably, McGibney obtained a $250,000.00 judgment against Hunter
Moore for this same lie. Additionally, Plaintiffs sue all Defendants for
negligence per se, in violation of Texas Penal Codes 22.07, 42.07 &
42.072. Plaintiffs would show that the defamation, defamation per se and
negligence per se of the Defendants in violation of these Texas Penal
Codes have proximately caused both Plaintiffs substantial actual
damages, including substantial economic or pecuniary losses in the past,
present and future, and for McGibney non-economic or non-pecuniary
losses in the past, present and future. McGibney is a married father with
three young children.
McGibney and his family live in fear, suffer
tremendous anxiety and worry, and McGibney's wife has suffered severe
stress and anxiety about her safety, McGibney's safety, and the safety of
their children. For all such damages, Plaintiffs now sue.
19.
Plaintiffs would also show that Defendants' repetitive actions are
intentional, extreme, outrageous, malicious, and designed to inflict as

much emotional distress and anguish upon PlaintiffMcGibney as possible.
8
067-270669-14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
Accordingly, McGibney sues all Defendants for the tort of intentional

infliction of emotional distress.
The actions of all Defendants that
constitute these intentional torts include but are not limited to threats of
violence, threats of death, comments about the residence of Plaintiff
McGibney and his spouse intended to terrorize McGibney, comments
about his family, etc., all of which are specifically designed to inflict as
much emotional distress as possible upon McGibney and his family. As
a result, Plaintiff McGibney has sustained severe emotional and mental
distress and anguish, with physical manifestations, in the past, present
and likely into the future, including but not limited to extreme worry, loss
of sleep, anxiety, fear and other emotional suffering and anguish with
physical manifestations all proximately resulting from Defendants'
intentional infliction of emotional distress upon him, all of which to be
demonstrated at the time of trial. Plaintiff McGibney therefore seeks to
recover all his actual damages proximately caused by Defendants'
intentional infliction of emotional distress upon him, including all his
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in the past, present and likely into
the .future.
20.
Plaintiff ViaView also sues all Defendants for the torts of business
9
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
067-270669-14
disparagement and tortious interference with business relationships.
ViaView owns and operates the website www.bullyville.com. Defendants

have made multiple threats against its officers and board of directors.
The Defendants consistently and habitually disparage the business of
ViaView through false statements, outright lies, and accusations of
misconduct by ViaView and its website that have no basis in fact. The
Defendants specifically intend their misconduct to disparage and harm the
business of ViaView, and to disrupt the business relationships of ViaView
and its website www.bullyville.com.
Defendants' tortious business
disparagement and interference with ViaView's business relationships

have proximately caused ViaView substantial actual business losses and
pecuniary damages, including without limitation loss of advertisers on
www. bullyville.com. In this regard, Defendants have contacted every
advertiser on www.bullyville.com and harassed them to such an extent
that many have stopped advertising on this website. Defendants utilized
their blog site "itsabouttruth" to coordinate their attacks upon the
advertisers,
and
then
Defendants
bragged
about
causing
www.bullyville.com to lose money. Further, Defendants have contacted

multiple celebrities associated with this website and harassed them so
10
067-270669-14
severely
that
these
celebrities
dissociated
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
themselves
from
www.bullyville.com out of fear for their safety. Defendants have also

created dozen of sock accounts on Twitter and Facebook to harass
McGibney and anyone associated with www.bullyville.com.
For all
damages proximately resulted from these torts, ViaView now sues.

21.
Plaintiffs would also show that the actions of all the Defendants are
malicious, intentional, and done with a specific intent to cause as much

harm and damage upon both Plaintiffs as possible. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
sue all Defendants for gross negligence per se in violation of Texas Penal
Codes 22.07, 42.07 & 42.072. Plaintiffs seek to recover against all
Defendants for their gross negligence per se all of Plaintiffs' pecuniary and
non-pecuniary actual damages in the past, present and likely into the
future. Furthermore, since the actions of the Defendants were performed
knowingly, with the specific intent to cause as much harm and damage as
possible' and with certain know ledge that their misconduct repeatedly and
intentionally impinged upon Plaintiffs' rights under the law. Plaintiffs,
therefore, seek to recover against each and every Defendant, jointly and
severally, punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in the fact finder's
discretion sufficient to punish each and every Defendant and to deter any
II
067-270669-14
future misconduct by each and every Defendant.

22.
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 681 et seq., Plaintiffs also ask this Court
for an entry of a Temporary Injunction Order after a Temporary

Injunction trial to prohibit anymore internet or Twitter postings or
comments by Defendants that either (1) violate Texas Penal Codes, (2)
constitute any unlawful verbal acts, or (3) otherwise are unlawful and are
not opinions protected by the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
Plaintiffs specifically request that this Court issue a
Temporary Injunction Order after a Temporary Injunction trial that

would prohibit and enjoin any internet or twitter postings, comments,
threats, twitter or social media statements or blog entries by each and all
Defendants that constitute unlawful verbal acts, or are criminal
misconduct in violation of Texas Penal Codes, or are otherwise unlawful.
Plaintiffs agree and stipulate that they are not seeking to enjoin via a
prior restraint of speech any constitutionally protected opinions of
Defendants.
Plaintiffs, therefore, shall seek narrowly tailored and
appropriate injunctive relief after a Temporary Injunction trial, after

Defendants have been duly served with citation and either file their
answers or otherwise default by failing to answer this Petition. Plaintiffs
12
067-270669-14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
also request that this Court issue a Permanent Injunction Order after a
final trial on the merits, to prohibit and enjoin the misconduct identified
in this paragraph of this Petition, or any other misconduct by Defendants
that can lawfully be subject to a permanent injunction order.
23.
For all such damages and injunctive relief, Plaintiffs now sue.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that each
Defendant be lawfully served, and this Court issue an appropriate

Temporary Injunction Order after a Temporary Injunction Trial, and after
a full trial on the merits, the Plaintiffs recover all their actual and
punitive damages against each and every Defendant, jointly and severally,
as well as court costs, pre and post judgment interest, and also that
Plaintiffs recover all such other relief, at law or in equity, to which
Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.
(espectfi/11 y Submitted,
JOHN SK MORGAN
Texa/Bar No. 14447475

Morgan Law Firm
2175 North Street, Ste. 101
Beaumont, Texas 77701
(409) 239-5984
(409) 835-2700 facsimile
imorgan@1smorganlaw.com
13
067-270669-14
OF COUNSEL:
Jason S. Leiderman
SEN: 203336
Eric J. Lindgren
SEN: 288543
Law Offices of Jay Leiderman
5740 Ralston Street, Suite 300
Ventura, California 93003
(805) 654-0200
(805) 654-0280 facsimile
Randazza Legal Group
Marc J. Randazza
NBN: 12265
3625 S. Town Center Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(702) 420-2001
14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
2/19/2014 11:13:42 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
CIVIL CASE INFORMATION SHEET

067-270669-14
COURT (FOR CLERK USE ONLY):
CAUSE NUMBER (FOR CLERK. USE ONLY):
'^\\mLS
.. ,
/r^/u^rm
A civil case information sheet must be completed and submitted when an original petition orapprication is filea to initiate a new civil, faintly law, probate, or mental
STYLED J/3/y|/5 lAT.fi I knf.ti (J^ JfJ^fJj).^^
, \f -t
(e.i!., John SinTili v. All Anieiicjin Insurance Co; In re Man' Ann Jones; In (he Malleii oof Ilie Eslnle of George Jackson)
health case or when a post-judgment petition for modification or inolion for enforcement is filed in a family law case. The information should be the best available at
the time of filing. This sheet, approved by the Texas Judicial Council, is intended to collect information that will be used for statistical purposes only. It neither replaces
nor supplements the filings or service of pleading or other documents as required by law or rule. The sheet does not constitute a discovery request, response, or
supplementation, and it is not admissible at trial.
Contract
Debl/Contracl
DConsumer/DTPA
DDebt/Contract
DFraud/Misrepresentation
DOther Debt/Contract:
Foreclosure
QHome EquityExpedited
QOther Foreclosure
DFranchise
Dlnsurance
D Landlord/Tenant
DNon-Competition
DPartnership
DOther Contract:
Real Proper!)'
QEminent Domain/
Condemnation
QPartition
DQuiet Title
QTrespass to Try Title
QOther Properry:
Injury or Damage
DAssa nit/Battery
Pônsmictioii
FTDefamalion
Malpractice
DAccounting
DLegal
DMedical
QOtlier Professional
Liability:
DMotor Vehicle Accident
DPremises
Product Liability'
DAsbeslos/Silica
DOther Product Liability
List Product:
DOther Injury or Damage:
Employment
[^Discrimination
ClRetaliation
DTermination
DWorkers' Compensation
tDOtlier Employment:
Tax
DTax Appraisal
D'lax Delinquency
DOther Tax
DAdministrative Appeal
nAntitrust/Unfair
Competition
LUCode Violations
QForeign Judgment
Dlntellectual Property
Related to Criminal
Matters
dExpunction
DJudgmentNisi
dNon-Disclosure
DSeizure/Forfeittire
DWrit of Habeas Corpus
Pre-indiclment
DOther:
Marriage Relationship
QAnnulment
DDeciare Marriage Void
Divorce
DWith Children
DNo Children
Other Family Law

QEnforce Foreig i
Judgment
[DHabeas Corpus
QName Change
DProtective Order
QRemoval of Disabilities
ofMinoritj'
DOther:
Other Civil
D Lawyer Discipline
n Perpetuate Testimony
DSecurities/Stock
DTortious Interference
DOther:
Post-judgment Actions
(non-Title IV-D)
[Ênforcement
dModification Custody
DModification Other
Title JV-D
[ZJEnforceinent/ModiFication
DPaternity
QReciprocals (UIFSA)
nSupport Order
Parent-Child Relationship
LjAdoption/Adoption with
Termination
DChild Protection
DChild Support
QCustody or Visitation
dGestational Parenting
CDGrandparent Access
D Parentage/Paten) ity
DTermination of Parental
Rights
DOther Parent-Child:
Probate & Mental Health

Probale/Wills/lnlcstale Administration
DDependent Administration
Îndependent Administration
DOther Estate Proceedings
3. Indicate procedure or remedy, if npplicahle (may select mare than 1):

[UDeclaratory Judgment
QAppeal from Municipal or Justice Court
nArbitralion-related
OGarnishinent
DAttachment
ninterpleader
DLicense
DBill of Review
DCerliorari
OMiindamus
QCIass Action
D Post-judgment
DOuardianshipAdult
DGuardianshipMinor
DMental Health
Dother:
QPrejudgment Remedy
DProtective Order
nSequestration
QTemporary Restraining Order/Injunction
nTumover
_^~
, __ ^
'
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Document5 Filed03/17/14 Page1 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
JASON S. LEIDERMAN, SBN 203336

jay@criminal-lawyer.me
LAW OFFICES OF JAY LEIDERMAN
Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JAMES MCGIBNEY
VIAVIEW, INC
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THOMAS RETZLAFF, an individual,
)
NEAL RAUHAUSER, an individual,
)
LANE LIPTON, an individual, and
DOES 1-5, individuals whose true names are not )
)
known,
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
JAMES MCGIBNEY, an individual, and
VIAVIEW, INC, a corporation,
Case No.: 5:14-cv-01059 HRL

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
FOR:
(1) TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS;
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE;
(3) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
(4) DEFAMATION;
(5) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE INVASION OF
PRIVACY
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs James McGibney (Mr. McGibney), an individual, and ViaView, Inc. (ViaView), a
22
corporation (collectively, Plaintiffs), set forth the following causes of action against Defendants
23
Thomas Retzlaff (Retzlaff), Neal Rauhauser (Rauhauser), and Lane Lipton (Lipton), and yet
24
unnamed Does 1-5 (collectively, Defendants), and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION
25
26
1. Beginning in or about June 2013 and continuing through the present, Defendants, acting
27
individually and in concert, have engaged in a civil conspiracy to destroy Plaintiffs herein. Defendants
28
have relentlessly harassed, defamed, cyber-stalked and invaded the privacy of Mr. McGibney, in a
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 1

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
deliberate effort to harm his reputation and the reputation of his business, ViaView, Inc. In addition to
launching countless personal attacks which included threats of violence, Defendants agreed to and
carried out a plan to ruin Plaintiffs relationships with advertisers and sponsors, costing Mr. McGibney
and ViaView hundreds of thousands of dollars of ad revenue and other income. Mr. McGibney asks this
court to right these financial and personal harms.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Mr. McGibney, at all relevant times mentioned herein, was and is now an individual
residing and domiciled in San Jose, California. He also owns residential property in Las Vegas, Nevada.
3. Plaintiff ViaView is a Delaware corporation with its business centers in San Jose, California and
10
Las Vegas, Nevada. ViaView is the owner and operator of the popular websites
11
http://www.bullyville.com (BullyVille), an anti-bullying website, http://www.karmaville.com
12
(KarmaVille), a website devoted to good and bad karma, http://www.slingerville.com
13
(SlingerVille), a website about tattoos, http://www.cupidville.com (CupidVille), an online dating
14
site, and http://www.cheaterville.com (CheaterVille) and anti-infidelity website.
15
16
17
18
19
20
4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendant Retzlaff was and is
now an individual residing and domiciled in Tarrant County, Texas.
5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendant Rauhauser was and
is now an individual residing and domiciled in Washington, D.C.
6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendant Lane Lipton was and
is now and individual residing and domiciled in Roslyn, Nassau County, New York.
21
7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants named herein as
22
Doe Defendants 1 through 5 are other individuals, the true names and locations of whom are unknown.
JURISDICTION
23
24
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, as the parties in this case
25
are completely diverse and the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of
26
$75,000.
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 2

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
VENUE
9. A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims sued upon herein occurred in San Jose,
California.
4
5
10. As alleged below, Defendants knew that Plaintiff Mr. McGibneys residence and domicile were
in San Jose California and they intentionally committed wrongs against him in San Jose, California.
6
7
11. Likewise, on information and belief, each Defendant knew Plaintiff ViaView was based in San
Jose, California.
8
9
12. On information and belief, Defendants intentionally directed their conduct in order to cause harm
to Plaintiffs interests in San Jose.
10
11
13. Therefore, venue lies in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2),
and this courts exercise of jurisdiction in this case is reasonable and appropriate.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12
13
14
I.
Plaintiffs Operate Popular Anti-Bullying Website BullyVille and Anti-Infidelity Website

CheaterVille.
15
14. Plaintiff Mr. McGibney is a business owner and former United States Marine. Mr. McGibney
16
served tours of duty with Third Surveillance Reconnaissance Intelligence Group and Marine Security
17
Guard Battalion. He was awarded the Navy Achievement Medal for computer security support to 128
18
U.S. Embassies. Mr. McGibney is the CEO and founder of his business, ViaView, which operates the
19
websites BullyVille and CheaterVille (the Websites). ViaView has a board of directors.
20
15. The Websites aim to give a voice to those victimized by bullying (BullyVille) or romantic
21
infidelity (CheaterVille) by providing a public platform upon which victims may tell their stories.
22
16. In line with the goals of the Websites, Mr. McGibney vigorously exerts social and financial
23
pressure on owners, operators and purveyors of revenge porn websites with the intent of shuttering
24
those websites. Wikipedia has a good definition of revenge porn. It states: Revenge porn is sexually
25
explicit media that is publicly shared online without the consent of the pictured individual. [] Revenge
26
porn is typically uploaded by ex-partners or hackers. Many of the images are selfies which are taken
27
by the subject of the photo. The images are often accompanied by personal information, including the
28
pictured individuals full name, links to Facebook and social media profiles or addresses.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 3

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
17. Revenge porn is now criminal in several jurisdictions, including California. Plaintiff McGibney
has been very successful in permanently shutting down numerous revenge porn sites and has been
credited with saving the lives of dozens of young girls. These girls were often underage and many were
contemplating suicide in part because their naked images landed on these despicable sites.
5
6
18. Like many Internet-based businesses, the primary revenue source for the Websites comes from
advertisers.
19. All ViaView sites average approximately one million individual and unique user hits per month.
20. Plaintiffs are and were at all times relevant to this suit parties to numerous contracts with
advertisers, including but not limited to:
10
a. Spokeo.com
11
b. Lijit.com
12
c. Advertise.com
13
d. Godaddy.com
14
e. Digit covers
15
21. Combined advertising revenue lost as the result of Defendants conduct exceeds $19,300 per
16
month. This loss does not include other losses described herein. The calculations of loss for the effect
17
upon other advertisers that would have been drawn to the sites, or from the loss of clicks toward
18
advertisers that have remained, attributable directly to the direct harassment of Mr. McGibney or the
19
harassment of celebrity spokespeople described in detail herein, has ratcheted up the loss to at least
20
$250,000.00 already, and that amount grows each day.
21
22. Prior to Defendants conduct complained of herein, Plaintiffs enjoyed a good working
22
relationship with his advertisers listed in paragraph 20 and most advertisers had been doing business
23
with ViaView continuously for two or more years. Visits to BullyVille and CheaterVille were growing
24
and neither site had problems with celebrity spokespersons wanting to distance themselves from his
25
websites. Rather, it was quite the opposite: many high profile celebrities have supported BullyVille over
26
the years.
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 4

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
1
2
II.
Retzlaffs Campaign of Harassment of, Defamation of, and Interference with Plaintiffs
Business.
23. Defendant Thomas Retzlaff was a prolific user of these revenge porn sites. Plaintiff Mr.
McGibney has identified at least 18 victims (mostly female) whose personal information and/or nude
images Retzlaff has posted on revenge porn sites TEXXXAN.COM, MYEX.COM,
ISANYONEUP.COM, ISANYONEUP.NET and YOUGOTPOSTED.COM.
24. Moreover, Mr. Retzlaff has made horrendous comments accompanying these girls posts such as
I would like to suck on her tits while raping her mouth and Imma [sic.] break her teeths out with my
dick and rape that booty. It has also been proven that Defendant Retzlaff posted his own daughter on
10
numerous revenge porn websites. Within one site, where he uploaded naked images of his own daughter,
11
he stated, I wanna rape her, I will see u in El Paso Brittany.
12
25. As a result, a number of women victimized by these sites, and Retzlaffs conduct, have filed
13
multiple lawsuits and restraining orders against Retzlaff in Texas. Plaintiff Mr. McGibney has been
14
helpful in the causes against Retzlaff.
15
16
26. Defendant Retzlaff is also a convicted felon, having been imprisoned from 1998 through 2004,
for sexual assault, burglary and unlawful possession of a weapon on elementary school property.
17
27. Once Mr. McGibney successfully shut down a few of these websites, including
18
ISANYONEUP.COM, he immediately became a target, indeed an obsession, for Retzlaff.
19
28. Beginning in late October 2013, Retzlaff began targeting Plaintiffs using a vast array of social
20
media accounts, across many different platforms, using many different aliases. These aliases,
21
colloquially referred to as sock puppets or socks, were intended to hide Retzlaffs true identity.
22
They had the further purpose of creating the illusion of broad support for Retzlaffs extreme views while
23
he carried out his stalking and cyber-terrorism. In actuality, Retzlaffs public support came primarily
24
or entirely from accounts controlled and maintained by him and other co-defendants to this action.
25
29. The names and accounts Retzlaff used include, but are not limited to:
26
a. The Twitter account @MrTexxxan;
27
b. An account named LongJohnSilver on BullyVille;
28
c. A Facebook account for user Scott Jewels;
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 5

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
d. A Facebook account for user Molly Santucci;
e. The Twitter account @KellySwift4;
f. A Facebook account for user Kelly Swift;
g. E-mail alias James Smith: james.smith871003@gmail.com;
h. TheDirty.com alias DickHertz,
i. The Twitter account @PedoCaptain;
j. The Twitter account @bright_Anon;
k. The Twitter account @BV_Truther;
l. The Twitter account @BV_Truth;
10
m. The Twitter account @Klansmann;
11
n. E-mail alias Dean Allen: deanallen5634@outlook.com;
12
o. E-mail alias Dean Anderson: deananderson714@yahoo.com; and
13
p. Wikipedia.org alias deadgoldfish.
14
30. Plaintiffs have taken numerous steps to confirm that it is Retzlaff behind each alias or sock
15
listed herein, including but not limited to lawfully tracking internet protocol addresses1 and matching
16
email addresses between accounts. Mr. Retzlaff does not take significant steps to conceal his identity
17
online besides using multiple names and accounts and a less-than-stable VPN2 connection. Plaintiff is
18
certain he can prove that all accounts complained of herein belong to Retzlaff. He is informed and
19
believes that all accounts belong to Retzlaff and thereon alleges that Retzlaff uses the accounts to
20
illegally harass, defame and stalk Mr. McGibney.
21
31. Plaintiffs reasonably anticipate that Retzlaff and the other Defendants will continue to create
22
multiple aliases to harass, stalk, terrorize and defame Plaintiffs and their business partners in order to
23
continue inflicting emotional and financial harm.
24
25
26
27
28
Internet Protocol or IP addresses are unique addresses that show what computer is creating the packets sent through the
internet.
2
A VPN, or virtual private network, is a technology that allows a user to obscure his true IP address by encrypting that
users traffic and routing it through a separate IP address.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 6

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
32. On October 30, 2013, Retzlaff publicly tweeted from the @MrTexxxan account (an account
associated with revenge porn website www.texxxan.com) that he was surprised no one has shot them
fools yet. lots of crazy ppl in the world off their meds Based upon the context, it is clear that Retzlaff
was referencing Mr. McGibney and other people associated with ViaView.
33. The @MrTexxxan account has since been suspended by Twitter.
34. On November 2, 2013, Retzlaff, posting using alias LongJohnSilver, wrote several paragraphs
in the comments section of an article published on BullyVille targeting Mr. McGibney, stating, If I was
listed on his website I would put a bullet in his head. Its as simple as that. . . . You walk up behind
him at a Wal-mart or whatnot, you shot [sic] him and take off, dump the gun in Lake Mead or
10
somewhere and youre go [sic] to go. So go ahead James, keep it up. Sooner or later youre going to
11
step on the wrong set of toes and youre going to come across a real life tough guy, not an internet tough
12
guy like a Hunter Moore,[3] and its gonna cost you and your family your lives.
13
35. On November 2, 2013, Retzlaff replied to a comment on BullyVille with his LongJohnSilver
14
alias Crazy people do not care if they get caught. They will kill you regardless as to the consequences
15
to them because they are crazy. So while its all well and good that the FBI will eventually catch them
16
(assuming theyre not one of the 40% who literally get away with murder), it does you little good if
17
youre the dead guy or the dead family.
18
19
36. On or around November 3, 2013, Retzlaff, using alias Scott Jewels, wrote in the comments
section of an article discussing a lawsuit filed by a stalking victim:
20
a. James McGibney at BullyVille is a lying piece of human garbage.
21
b. Obviously [a reality TV stars]4 and Bullyvilles allegations are a complete lie. That
22
f@ggot who runs BullyVille, James McGibney was screaming and hollering about
23
how he (McGibney) was going to get Jon and all of his supporters and how Jon was a
24
25
26
27
28
Hunter Moore is a well-known personality who pioneered the revenge porn website genre on his site, isanyoneup.com.
Mr. McGibney secured a $250,000 judgment against Hunter Moore for conduct similar to that alleged here. Moore is
currently under federal indictment for hacking conspiracy charges.
4
McGibney became involved in the defense of a woman when she was viciously attacked by people over the internet. The
comments referenced in paragraph 36 reflect his involvement in that suit.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 7

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
thief and physically abused [the mother] and all sorts of nonsense. I hope Jon sued
McGibney and his homo attorney to death.
c. James McGibney is a lying homosexual.
d. James and Christina McGibney live at [redacted for safety], they own a revenge porn
website Cheaterville.
5
6
7
37. On the same website, at around the same time, Retzlaff posted the name of Mr. McGibneys wife
and their home address a second time.
8
9
38. On the same website, Retzlaff amplified his harassment by also using the alias Molly Santucci,
agreeably replying to posts by Scott Jewels.
10
39. On November 15, 2013, Retzlaff again used the alias Molly Santucci to directly contact DJ
11
ASHBA via Facebook. Mr. Ashba, as is described below, is a musician and celebrity spokesperson for
12
BullyVille. Mr. Ashba was falsely told that CheaterVille is a revenge porn website and Retzlaff, via
13
sock accounts encouraged DJ ASHBA to remove [his] endorsement and end [his] relationship with
14
revenge porn BullyVille!!!!!!!!
15
40. On the same day, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @KellySwift4, tweeted a similar statement to Mr.
16
Ashba: @DjASHBA Why do you support revenge porn w/ ur BullyVille endorsements? Dont u know
17
BV runs Cheaterville revenge porn site too?!!5
18
41. Mr. Ashba is a musician with a world-famous rock group. His endorsement created a lot of
19
interest in BullyVille from advertisers new and old. Plaintiffs estimate he drove hundreds of thousands
20
of visitors to BullyVille every month.
21
42. After receiving these and other unwanted messages from Retzlaff, and learning that Retzlaff was
22
convicted of a felony and served time in prison, Mr. Ashba became fearful for his safety and the safety
23
of his family.
24
25
43. Mr. Ashba has reduced his role in BullyVille significantly as a result of Retzlaffs conduct and
because Mr. Ashba has concerns for his personal safety that he did not previously have.
26
27
28
BV is an abbreviation for BullyVille and Retzlaff uses it frequently to reference both the site and Mr. McGibney himself, or
both.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 8

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
44. Plaintiffs estimate the loss of Mr. Ashba as a prominent sponsor has, and will continue to, cost
Plaintiffs at least $9,300 per month in advertising revenue as a result of fewer site visitors and
significantly less interest from new advertisers.
45. Retzlaff has not only harassed Mr. Ashba in connection with his campaign against Mr.
McGibney. He has harassed ViaViews PR firm, Lexicon Public Relations and celebrity Becca Tobin
from the show GLEE that airs on FOX. Each distanced themselves from BullyVille due to safety
concerns caused by Retzlaffs harassment campaign. This has caused an additional loss of revenue for
ViaView.
46. Again on November 15, 2013, using Twitter alias @Doxing_McGibney,6 Retzlaff publicly
9
10
tweeted Mr. McGibneys wifes name and their Las Vegas address. Retzlaff then tweeted Mr.
11
McGibneys San Jose address.
12
47. On November 15, and November 26, 2013, Retzlaff, using email alias James Smith, sent
13
harassing e-mails to blogger Adam Steinbaugh. Steinbaugh and McGibney worked together to shutter
14
revenge porn websites. In these e-mails, Retzlaff threatened to release private information about Mr.
15
McGibney:
16
a. I happen to work for a large multi-national company overseas, as I mentioned to you
17
before. As such, my HR Dept. has access to the LexisNexis Accurint LE Plus and
18
ChoicePoint CLEAR databases so as to fulfill all of our Govt contracts and regulatory
19
requirements. So if I were to say look up an Adam Steinbaugh or a James McGibney,
20
I would have access to a whole host of valuable personal, financial, and legal
21
information. What kind of car they drive, who they bank with, where they have lived
22
at for the past 20 yrs. (and who with), credit reports, traffic and arrest info, property
23
transactions, civil cases, any kind of hunting, fishing or drivers licenses, or trade
24
licenses, and just pages and pages worth of stuff. But not just on them, but on each of
25
their family members, too! And the family members of those family members.
26
27
28
Dox is a common Internet abbreviation for documents, usually referring to personal information. Doxing is the act of
publishing such personal information.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 9

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
b. And if that information on all those people found its way to a document hosting site,
well, that would be just too bad, wouldnt it? But then again, you guys started this
game first. So how would Mrs. McGibney feel to find her personal details doxed or
her family members doxed? Or Mr. & Mrs. Steinbaugh? You think they all want to
be involved in you guys game of doxing people and ordering twitter followers to
destroy their lives like Bullyville and Cpt Obvious always call for? [BullyVille and
its many followers do no such thing, unless you consider halting bullying or
shuttering revenge porn sites ruining someones life, as Retzlaff apparently thinks.]
48. On November 28, 2013, Retzlaff, on the website radaronline.com, using alias Scott Jewels,
10
publicly wrote: Now he [Mr. McGibney] throws rocks at random people from his Bullyville website.
11
McGibney also runs REVENGE PORN website Cheaterville. McGibney charges people $199 in order
12
to remove their photos and posts. McGibney is filth.
13
49. That statement is false and, as with all of the others, it was made with the knowledge of its
14
falsehood and with actual malice. Neither Mr. McGibney, nor ViaView, charge anyone to remove their
15
posts from CheaterVille, nor do they allow pornography or any nudity for that matter.
16
50. On that same date, and through his @mrtexxxan Twitter account, Defendant Retzlaff tweeted It
17
will be really funny seeing someone post pics of ur wife Christina when she is shopping at Smiths
18
with ur two kids.
19
51. On December 6, 2013, Retzlaff, using alias DickHertz, publicly posted on celebrity gossip
20
website TheDirty.com: James & Christina McGibney run Bullyville website, a site that HATES Nik
21
and the Dirty. Yet McGibney and his wife also run revenge porn site CheaterVille! And they also work
22
with scam take Down Hammer site TruthInPosting.com to charge little girls $199 to remove
23
Cheaterville pics and posts. Talk about hypocrites! McGibney and his wife scam girls with revenge
24
porn, but they hate Hunter Moore and Nik!!!
25
52. This is another complete and intentional lie by Retzlaff. Users of CheaterVille have the option to
26
login and make their post invisible. Furthermore, CheaterVille adheres to all DMCA takedown requests
27
within 48 hours, and refers cases that cannot be resolved to an independent arbitration service called
28
TruthInPosting (TIP).
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 10

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
53. Defendant Retzlaff has claimed on multiple occasions that ViaView and McGibney own TIP,
which is another false claim. TIP is an independent arbitration service, run by licensed mediators and
attorneys. Neither Plaintiff owns TIP, nor do they charge little girls $199 to remove Cheaterville pics
and posts as Retzlaff falsely claims they do.
54. On December 11, 2013, Retzlaff, using Facebook alias Kelly Swift, publicly contacted Plaintiffs
business partner Brickhouse Security, stating: Why are you people advertising on a revenge
pornography website? I find this VERY DISGUESTING!! [sic] You are helping to support the
victimization of women and children!!! Cheaterville.com is a revenge porn website that charges girls
$199 to remove photos. Same with Bullyville.com, its [sic] all terrible and you should not advertise on
10
11
there. YOU NEED TO PULL YOUR ADS NOW!!!!

55. Brickhouse Securitys Facebook account replied: Thank you for bringing this up to our
12
attention. We certainly do not want to be associated with any websites that would damage our brand.
13
We will look into the matter and take the necessary actions to prevent this from happening again. Thank
14
you, Brickhouse Security Team.
15
56. Shortly thereafter, Brickhouse Security pulled all ads from CheaterVille.
16
57. On December 17, 2013, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @PedoCaptain, publicly tweeted at
17
BullyVilles Twitter account: @BullyVille I would like to bury a hatchet right in your fucking
18
damn face. Public info: [address redacted] vegas [sic] ANYONE?????
19
58. On or around December 26, 2013, Retzlaff, using Facebook alias Kelly Swift, publicly posted
20
further accusations on the Facebook page of a BullyVille advertiser that Mr. McGibney was operating a
21
revenge porn website.
22
59. On December 30, 2013 and January 7, 2014, Retzlaff, using E-mail alias James Smith, sent Mr.
23
McGibney harassing e-mails which mentioned advertisers . . . dropping you like a bad habit and
24
celebrities [who] are runny [sic] away as fast as they can. It continued: Youve got a business to run
25
here and putting up crazy, irrational tweets isnt going to make customers comfortable or advertisers
26
happy.
27
28
60. On January 15, 2014, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @bright_Anon publicly tweeted: [ ] Did u
know that McGibney charges girls $199 to remove their intimate photos and personal details?
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 11

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Bullyville also works with his... Defendant Retzlaff made claims that anti-bullying website BullyVille
was a revenge porn website. This claim is, of course, absolutely false and without any merit
whatsoever, was made with the knowledge of its falsehood and with actual spite, ill will and malice.
61. On January 16, 18, and 22 2014, Retzlaff, using E-mail alias James Smith, sent Mr. McGibney
further e-mails discussing his relationship with advertisers: And is not calling an advertiser to complain
a perfectly legitimate form of expression? . . . The only person killing your advertising is you, sir. And
you damn well know it!
8
9
10
62. The e-mails acknowledge Retzlaffs intent to ruin Plaintiffs relationships with advertisers: I
spent a total for 30 minutes all together with my complaints to your advertisers. That includes time
spent on hold. And look how obviously effective it has been!!
63. On January 23, 2014, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @BV_Truther, publicly tweeted:
11
12
@BullyVille Yes, because getting into a pointless twitter fight w/ someone who has nothing to lose is a
13
winning strategy for ur family. This was a response to a tweet from BullyVille which read, Strong
14
people stand up for themselves but the strongest people stand up for others. The header (description)
15
for @BV_Truther was exposing the truth about Bullyvilles lies by calling HR Depts one at a time and
16
getting ads on revenge porn sites shut down as soon as they pop up!
17
64. On February 2, 2014, Retzlaff, posting on an anonymous account, submitted pictures and text
18
disparaging Mr. McGibney on www.myex.com, an actual revenge porn website.7 The post was titled
19
James McGibney is a lying hypocrite who cheats!! and stated that Mr. McGibney extorts money
20
from young girls and their families over the internet. He is the scum of the earth.
21
65. This post, which created a web page titled Naked Pics of James A. McGibney Las Vegas
22
Nevada: MyEx.com appeared in Google search results for James McGibney, meaning that when
23
someone would search for information about Plaintiff McGibney, this false and defamatory post would
24
be listed in the results. The post did not in fact include any naked pictures.
25
26
27
28
The very top of the front page of www.myex.com says GET REVENGE. It specifically hosts Nude Photos along with
names, ages, and locations of the subjects of these nude photos, which are posted without the subjects consent. A clearer
violation of Californias revenge porn law, Penal Code 653.2(a)(2), is barely imaginable.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 12

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
66. On February 8, 2014, Retzlaff, using E-mail alias Dean Allen, sent an incredibly lengthy e-mail
to numerous members of ViaViews board of directors, falsely claiming that Cheaterville.com is a
revenge porn website that engages in the abuse of young women and girls (and men!) by posting their
intimate photographs and personal information.
67. In this e-mail, Retzlaff ventured into extortion by stating that McGibney needed to delete all
Ville websites and permanently delete all data contained within each website and his @bullyville
twitter account or the attacks would continue.
68. In the same e-mail, Retzlaff admits knowledge that CheaterVille does not post nude photos.
69. On February 8, 2014, Retzlaff, using alias @BV_Truth, falsely tweeted that Mr. McGibney had
10
threatened him: @Sarelya23 [known to be Lora Lusher] And how difficult is it to send yourself a nasty
11
email and then claim that ur enemy did it? BV keeps sending ME death threats
12
70. On February 9, 2014, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @BV_Truth, tweeted: I wonder what
13
happened to all the advertisers on Bullyville & Cheaterville. Several months ago it used to be FILLED
14
with ads.
15
71. Using Wikipedia.org account deadgoldfish, Retzlaff repeatedly defaced Mr. McGibneys
16
Wikipedia page, deleting facts about Mr. McGibneys biography and adding false statements as well.
17
Retzlaff sometimes made dozens of edits per day. Wikipedia eventually banned Retzlaffs account and
18
locked the user editing function on Mr. McGibneys page.
19
72. During this time period (October 2013 present), Retzlaff posted numerous harassing and
20
defamatory things on a now defunct blog at http://itsabouttruth.wordpress.com. His conduct included
21
coordinating attacks against McGibney and ViaView with other blog members on ViaView advertisers.
22
Retzlaff still operates an active blog dedicated to stalking and defaming Mr. McGibney and ViaView.
23
73. As recently as March 3, 2014, Defendant Retzlaff sent an email to the school principal of one of
24
the board members children and caused such fear that the child has been removed from the school for
25
her safety and for the safety of other children. The local Police Department in Orange County were
26
immediately contacted and an investigation has been launched against Defendant Retzlaff. This is now
27
the fifth police investigation launched against Thomas Retzlaff across the country (Las Vegas, Northern
28
and Southern California, San Antonio and Fort Worth.)
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 13

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
74. Even after the initial Complaint in this case was filed on March 10, 2014, Retzlaff has continued
with the same harassment. In an email dated March 13, 2014, Retzlaff, using the alias Dean Anderson
this time, restated his familiar refrain: If you want the bleeding to stop, you need to IMMEDIATELY
shut down ViaView, Bullyville, Cheaterville - and your twitter account @BullyVille (and the other
accounts) and ensure that ALL of the documents, posts, and photos are totally destroyed and can never
been seen or used again. As we are confident that McGibney will somehow keep trying to post this stuff
and his d0x on people elsewhere (even though that is all ViaView property, right?) we will continue to
hold you people personally responsible in the court of public opinion for things that keep on happening
here.
75. As a direct result of Retzlaffs harassment of ViaViews board of directors and business partners,
10
11
two potential investors in ViaView began to fear for their safety. This fear of Retzlaff caused these two
12
investors, whose potential combined investment amount totaled $250,000, to back out of the pending
13
deal.
76. The FBI is aware of Retzlaff as numerous complaints have been filed through IC3 and local FBI
14
15
offices throughout the Country. His harassing activities have been enjoined by several different courts
16
in actions with different plaintiffs than are present herein, through multiple restraining orders.
17
77. The State of Texas has deemed Retzlaff a vexatious litigant. He has filed, by a courts estimate
18
in 2006, between 50 and 60 lawsuits. Most of his lawsuits were prosecuted in propia persona. He is
19
knowledgeable about the law to a certain extent, and often gives away his identity by discussing legal
20
matters as he consistently frames issues by reference to Texas or Texas state law.
21
III.
Neal Rauhausers Initial Role.
22
78. Defendant Neal Rauhauser is a left-wing blogger/activist/self-admitted hacker engaged in a
23
vicious, petty, prolonged and sustained attrition battle with a series of right-wing blogger/activists. His
24
political activities inform and drive his actions in all other areas of his life. Rauhauser is obsessively
25
online seeking to advance his personal agenda and the causes of the left. He is a sworn enemy of all that
26
oppose his personal agenda. Even a perceived slight to Rauhausers activities is cause for Rauhauser to
27
declare war, and he has done so prolifically over the past few years, including a declaration in favor of
28
destroying Mr. McGibney.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 14

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
79. Rauhauser has two outstanding warrants in New Jersey for criminal harassment, and one
outstanding warrant in Iowa for his failure to make over $50,000 in court-ordered child support
payments.
80. Rauhauser is a close ally and associate of defendant Lane Lipton. On information and belief,
they often share accounts, in including the Twitter accounts @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews,
@MissAnonNews_ and the BVFiles Wordpress site.
7
8
81. Rauhauser has a long and prolific history of cyber stalking, cyber harassment and social
engineering.8
82. In early-mid 2013, on information and belief, Rauhauser was one of the people in control of the
10
Twitter account @OccupyRebellion, a prominent account with many followers. This
11
@OccupyRebellion account was often used in the aforementioned battles with right-wing bloggers,
12
indeed, it was his most effective platform.
13
83. In mid-late 2013, after Mr. McGibney bought and took down the revenge porn site
14
isanyoneup.com, @OccupyRebellion began interacting with Mr. McGibney in a positive and prosocial
15
way.
16
84. After Mr. McGibney became involved in defending a reality TV star being viciously harassed
17
online, @OccupyRebellion turned on Mr. McGibney and began targeting Mr. McGibney with
18
harassment.
19
20
85. Other Twitter accounts operated by independent people saw @OccupyRebellions harassment of
Mr. McGibney as unjust, and retaliated against @OccupyRebellion.
21
86. As a result, the @OccupyRebellion account is no longer active, and Rauhauser lost his most
22
powerful platform. On information and belief, Rauhauser blames McGibney for this loss. He carries
23
that grudge forward to this day. @OccupyRebellion was vital to his anonymous attacks on right wing
24
bloggers, and Rauhauser, on information and belief, carries a grudge.
25
26
27
28
Social engineering involves lying and tricking someone to get them to do what you want. It is a nice name for using and
abusing people for ones own ends. Social engineering is a confidence scam used to gain trust. It involves a lot of work in
duplicity, and necessarily calls for using several personality types, including but not limited to sock accounts.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 15

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
87. On June 10, 2013, using the @nrauhauser Twitter alias, Rauhauser sent direct messages to Mr.
McGibneys Twitter account containing a veiled threat of SWATting:9 I want no misunderstandings on
this you go after her [Defendant Lipton, one alleged operator of the @OccupyRebellion Twitter alias]
you might get a SWAT attempt, wont be me.
88. On November 2, 2013, using the @Kookpocalypse Twitter alias, a known and admitted
Rauhauser alias or sock, Rauhauser tweeted @UnitePink @AubreyChernick Who wants to do the
honors on the Fedex to Becca Tobin?
89. This message is an encouragement to others to join the agreement to contact BullyVille sponsor
and television star Becca Tobin and tell her lies about the site in order to convince her to break ties with
10
BullyVille.
11
90. Another time, Rauhauser tweeted from his account a screen shot purporting to be his desktop. In
12
the picture, one can clearly see a plan to attack Mr. McGibney, Becca Tobin and others associated with
13
ViaView. It was a threat.
14
15
91. Rauhauser shared screen shots of files on his computer more than once. All showed that
Rauhauser had plans to ruin Mr. McGibney.
16
92. In a private instant message chat that Rauhauser had with a third party in December 2013, he
17
announced his intent to cause damage to Plaintiffs: So, McGibney, is there any reason not to lay waste
18
to [his] whole business?
19
93. Rauhauser wanted to destroy Mr. McGibney. He took that plan and put it into action. The result
20
was the allegations contained herein, and much more.
21
IV.
22
23
Lane Liptons Initial Role

94. Lane Lipton is also a left-wing blogger involved in the attrition war with the series of right-wing
bloggers. She was a public school employee but was terminated in 2012 and now, on information and
24
25
26
27
28
SWATting is the act of making a fraudulent phone call to a victims local 911 operator. The SWATter tells 911 dispatch
that there is a situation (often a hostage situation) at the victims place of residence, hoping that local law enforcement will
send a SWAT team to respond. The bigger the lie, the bigger the police response. The results can place a victim in extreme
danger of being mistakenly shot by police.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 16

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
belief, she spends most of her time on her numerous blog projects, using multiple identities and
viciously stalking and attacking people with whom she does not agree.
95. Like @OccupyRebellion and her admitted alias @qritiq, Lipton has an obsession with right-wing
blogger Lee Stranahan. Stranahan is a small-time blogger, a fringe player, and not widely known, but
Lipton, across all aliases, is obsessed with him. This obsession informs her use of the @qritiq,
@OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews and @MissAnonNews_ Twitter accounts. It is one of several
key identifiers.
96. Oddly, Lipton often takes the position as victim in these blogger wars, and asks that people
remove defamatory tweets about her. She does this across accounts, crying foul, threatening to sue and
10
then attacking in a manner quite similar across accounts, and quite similar to her conduct on the BVFiles
11
blog.
12
97. Lipton segregates her personas rather well. For example, her @LaneLipton account uses her real
13
name and is fairly polite, and largely uninvolved in arguments. This is the public persona that she
14
wishes to display. @qritiq is a milder and less vitriolic than her full-blown attack accounts. That
15
account, which was a sock account until it got doxed, and Lipton openly admitted it was her, got
16
involved in the same types of controversies with the same general groups of people, but was usually
17
prone to playing the victim and was not entirely antisocial. The @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews
18
and @MissAnonNews_ accounts were almost sociopathic in their attacks when she was tweeting from
19
it. The account stalked, doxed, threatened, menaced, smeared, and generally harassed in an unmitigated
20
fashion. That was the true prize fighter in both Lipton and Rauhausers arsenal. And after one fight
21
with Mr. McGibney over a reality TV show, it lost all credibility and then was suspended and lost
22
entirely.
23
98. The patterns of @qritiq and the anti-social accounts track with each other as it relates to Mr.
24
McGibney. For example, after @occupyrebellion got mad at Mr. McGibney for sticking up for an
25
embattled reality TV star, @qritiq began casting stones at Mr. McGibney from her Twitter account as
26
well. The two attacks were two days apart in August 2013.
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 17

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
99. @qritiq also interacted with all of Mr. Rauhausers accounts on a regular basis, and tweeted
consistently about Mr. McGibney. She also interacted regularly with her sock accounts
@OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews and @MissAnonNews_
100.
That Lipton is @qritiq is not in doubt. Besides her admission, her ex-boyfriend
repetitively states how he dated Lane Lipton, aka @qritiq. He publishes this statement to anyone that
will listen.
101.
@qritiq also has a close association to Rauhauser. They like the same things, tweet to
each other, and attack opponents together. They share political views and enemies, including Mr.
McGibney. They appear to be the tightest of allies.
10
102.
Likewise, Rauhauser and @qritiq often loop @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews and
11
@MissAnonNews_ into their conversations, such that they might have agreement and harmonization
12
throughout accounts. Though it is the two of them talking to themselves, it looks like more people.
13
103.
On information and belief, we are able to tell when Rauhauser uses the accounts and
14
when Lipton uses them. Rauhauser uses a calmer, more evil, deceptive and plotting persona, whereas
15
Lipton is overtly vicious and out of control.
16
104.
The @OccupyRebellion account was lost in June 2013. After that, Rauhauser and Lipton
17
really geared up their revenge and began to attack Mr. McGibney in concert.
18
V.
19
20
Tweets from the @MissAnonNews and @MissAnonNews_ Twitter accounts, run by

Rauhauser and Lipton
105.
On information and belief, Rauhauser and Defendant Lane Lipton both possess the login
21
credentials for the @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews and @MissAnonNews_ accounts. Twitter
22
has now suspended all accounts.
23
106.
On information and belief, one or more of Doe Defendants 1 through 5 also possessed
24
working login credentials for the @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews and @MissAnonNews_
25
Twitter accounts and are responsible for some of the statements detailed below.
26
107.
Rauhauser and Lipton used the @MissAnonNews accounts to publish a great number of
27
harassing and defamatory tweets about Defendants. These statements were false, made with knowledge
28
of their falsehood, and were made with actual malice, spite and ill will. The statements below were
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 18

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
ostensibly made to support the position that Mr. McGibney was not valuable in the shuttering of revenge
porn websites. These statements include, but are not limited to the following: On August 8, 2013,
@MissAnonNews tweeted a series of statements directed at Plaintiffs:
a. Threatened to come after my family for calling non-existenet [sic] 14-year-old a
5
6
whore who sets up men as pedos?? @Radicalising #Anonymous

b. Dont any of you DARE compare what you do to To Catch a Predator when those
men actually TRAVEL to go meet kids!! #Anonymous
7
8
c. I said for weeks this was a set up framing men as pedos. Now u admit SHE
9
10
NEVER EXISTED. . . .
d. YOU SAID YOU KNOW HER IN REAL LIFE AND SHES SO
11
TRAUMATIZED. NOW YOU ADMIT THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNDERAGE
12
GIRL. #Anonymous
13
e. EVERY SINGLE PERSON LINKED TO BULLYVILLE IS A PEDOPHILE AND
14
CHILD ABUSER. YOU JUST ADMITTED SHE NEVER EXISTED.
15
#Anonymous
16
f. Either Bullyville is sexually exploiting minors. Or hes lying saying she never
17
18
existed in order to avoid LAWSUITS. #Anonymous

g. Bullyville and every single piece of trash around him are child abusers who give real
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pedo hunters a bad name. #Anonymous

108.
On August 26, 2013 the account tweeted the following:
a. People have the God given RIGHT to tweet, comment, and write whatever the they
[sic] damn well please without Bullyville threatening to kill them.
b. Neither Mr. McGibney, the personnel at ViaView or any staff at BullyVille ever
threatened to kill anyone. That statement is false.
c. On August 27, 2013 that account posted the false and defamatory tweet: Child
26
predator Bullyville started threatening the lives of the people who accused
27
AnonChimp SECONDS after hearing the story.
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 19

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
d. One minute later, it tweeted: If youre a friend of Bullyville, you can rape whoever
you want. Hell start threatening to kill the accuser.
e. On January 27, 2014, @MissAnonNews_ tweeted the following series of statements,
directed at Mr. McGibney:
f. Bullyvilles sock talking about free speech again like he knows what it means. If
only someone could stick a rifle in his mouth.
g. For two years pedophile James McGibney has been libeling a woman saying she
CHEATED on her EX-husband with her FATHER.
h. If that was the case, the father would have been RAPING her. But according to
pedo hunter Bullyville, rape & incest is now = AFFAIR.
i. Bullyville and his minions have been threatening to have people raped & murdered,
stalking their children & getting people fired from jobs.
j. Only a deadbeat such as BV would go after someones job & livelihood when hes
never worked a day in his life & relies on others for money.
k. Blackmailing & extorting hundreds of dollars from people to take down the libel
about them from his revenge porn sites. He then re-posts.
l. Free Speech?? Then why sue Hunter Moore for calling you a pedophile? YOU ARE
A PEDOPHILE. You prove it every fucking day.
m. James McGibney is 100 times worse than Hunter Moore. Moore at least admits
what he does. McGibney exceeds Moore.
n. McGibney & the trash around him constantly falsely accusing people of being
pedophiles but he has the gall to sue when they call him one.
o. SUE ME CUNT. You cant. It will only get worse for you and your hooker wife
Christina Marie Orduna McGibney.
25
p. You would have to pay your lawyers to come find me. I can get them pro-bono.
26
q. JAMES MCGIBNEY IS A PEDOPHILE. [] JAMES MCGIBNEY IS A
27
PEDOPHILE. [] JAMES MCGIBNEY IS A PEDOPHILE. [] JAMES MCGIBNEY
28
IS A PEDOPHILE.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 20

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
r. Mr. McGibney, we found an empty email account tied to her Twitter account. You
also cant arrest a Tor node.10
2
3
s. Mr. Gibney, we also suggest you grow a pair of balls, get a life of your own, and
leave these women alone. Loser.

t. That will be $5,000 please. Have a nice day Mr. Gibney.
109.
On the same day, @MissAnonNews_ also tweeted the following:
a. The Wikipedia article on James McGibney has been protected (locked from
7
8
editing) to hide the truth about his fake degrees. [retweeted from @rchPr1357]
b. McGibneys company was sued by a couple for defamation that was posted on
10
Cheaterville. Why was that removed from Wikipedia? [retweeted from
11
@rchPr1357]
12
c. You have bigger things to worry about than your Wikipedia page.
13
d. When this is all said and done with, the name James McGibney will be forever tied
14
to pro-rape, pro-pedophile, and pro-child abuse.
15
16
110.
On February 5, 2014, @MissAnonNews_ published the following statements, directed at
Mr. McGibney:
17
a. Why do pedo hunters hang around that bitch [Mr. McGibney]? What happened to
18
saving children?
19
b. If that blonde is @TeenMomTruth, there are better looking women on cam shows
20
who can make pretend they like you.
21
c. Was @TeenMomTruth sending her nudes to Bullyville too? Is that why they all
22
ditched real pedo hunting to be that whores personal army?
23
d. Was Bullyville cheating on his wife with @TeenMomTruth????? Does Christina
24
Marie Orduna McGibney know?????
25
26
27
28
10
Tor is in internet randomizing software, used in part to obscure an IP address. Traffic exits a node instead of coming
directly from ones own computer. It provides a degree of anonymity.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 21

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
e. Her drivers license says shes 29. She looks like shes 19. The men she falsely
accused of being pedophiles will sure like to know this.
f. Is Bullyville in Los Angeles? Theres a rumor hes moved. :-O . . .
111.
On February 6, 2014, @MissAnonNews_ posted the following series of tweets:
a. The McGibney deadbeats run several revenge sites & extortion sites where they
blackmail people out of hundreds of dollars to take down posts.
b. Even after they pay Bullyville, he re-posts it back up on hi [sic] sites. That extortion
company has now been hit with a RICO suit.11
8
9
c. One of the owners of that extortion site is a defendant listed as a John Doe. More
likely James McGibney.
10
d. It would take too much work and efforts for deadbeats James & Christina McGibney
11
12
to get real jobs. They rely on EXTORTION.
13
e. Why did James & Christina McGibney recently move from Nevada to California?
14
What are the cowards running from?
15
f. What a great day it would be if someone kicked down their door and permanently
16
silenced them. Two less revenge porn site owners alive.
17
g. There isnt one single difference between Hunter Moore or the deadbeat
18
McGibneys. Moore at least admits to what he does.
19
h. Bullyville and the pedophiles who masquerade as pedo hunters still to this day
20
release the nudes of several men and women. REVENGE PORN.
21
i. There is no difference between James & Christina McGibney and Hunter Moore.
22
The McGibney wont stop riding Moores coattails.
23
j. You think you could hide moving from Las Vegas to now living in California?
24
k. What will McGibney do when the lawsuits and RICO suit start rolling through? Get
25
wannabe Anons after them again trying to silence them?
26
27
28
11
Rauhauser is known to repetitively discuss filing civil RICO suits against his opponents.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 22

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
l. Bullyvilles revenge porn site is already being sued. The extortion site was hit with
2
3
a RICO suit.
m. Why does Bullyville accuse people of threatening to kill him? Id be surprised if he
4
5
survives to see the next decade.

n. You dont do what the McGibneys have done for YEARS and think you wont get a
6
7
bullet between the eyes one day by one of their victims.

o. What Moore does is to individual people. What the McGibneys do is to ENTIRE
8
9
families. The McGibneys are far worse than Hunter Moore.

p. James & Christina McGibney refuse to get jobs and think theyre entitled to other
peoples money.
10
11
12
112.
@MissAnonNews_ continued its series of tweets on February 7, 2014:
a. Now a failed marine obsessed with stalking women who dont like [a reality TV
13
star] has joined forces with Stranahan the pimp and rape supporter.
14
b. Because thats what being a pedo hunter these days is all about.
15
c. Oh hai, if your wife Christina Marie Orduna McGibney was gang raped, according
16
to your pal Stranahan its her fault and not brutal.
17
d. Bullyville and Stranahan also have porn in common.
18
e. Stranahan shoots porn. Many with his wife Lauren. While Bullyville has several
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
revenge porn sites & his lawyer is a porn lawyer.

f. Pedophile James McGibney has now recruited a white supremacist Sept. 11th
sympathizer AND another man who actually pimps his wife.
g. What charming company you keep McGibney. Has Stranahan filmed your wife
getting gang raped by a Steubenville [Ohio] football team yet?
h. Dude, seriously stop obsessing over me. RT @Captien5 @Bullyville BTW didnt I
hear about some subpoenas for MissAnonNuts? #GettingPopcorn
i. Wasnt I going to also be named as a Jane Doe in a [reality TV] lawsuit too? Oh
thats right, NOTHING HAPPENED.
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 23

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
j. @MissAnonNews_ hahaha still talking about subpoenas?? Where did mines go?
Planet Pluto? #DoucheBagFameFaqs #SelfServingTools #Vile
k. You sure are a glutton for punishment wanting to be constantly humiliated by
women.
113.
Shortly before the @MissAnonNews_ account was suspended, it tweeted: I hate
Twitter and a little bit of me dies every time I login. I want to kill most people. Starting with BullyVille.
F_cking cesspool.
VI.
Lane Lipton is Caught Logging In as an Administrator to a Fake BVFiles Website

114.
At some point in time unknown to Plaintiff, a person sympathetic to Plaintiff created a
10
website with a similar URL to bvfiles.wordpress.com. He used bvfiies.wordpress.com. When you
11
capitalize that second "i" it looks like an L (BVFiIes.wordpress.com).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
115.
Then he installed analytics, as nearly all sites include, which record visitor's IP address
and time of visit.

116.
He then modified the home page of the site to mimic the Wordpress login screen found
on most Wordpress sites at the address of /wp-admin.

117.
Then a link to his site was shared. A BullyVille antagonist clicked the link and thought
the site was down so they tweeted the link and questioned why it was down.
118.
Afterwards the following sequence of events occurred providing us with the IP address of
69.121.50.17 as being that of the blog's administrator.
20
a. Apparently bvfiles administrator (admin) sees the link claiming the site is down and
21
hits the parody site triggering the iplogger: Time 1:21:33pm from IP: 69.121.50.17
22
23
24
25
26
b. Apparently bvfiles admin sees the page is only loading the wp-admin (the fake login
page)
c. Apparently bvfiles admin then reloads the page 10 seconds later to confirm it's really
down: Time 1:21:43pm from IP: 69.121.50.17
d. Apparently seeing that it seems bvfiles.wordpress.com is truly down. bvfiles admin
27
then proceeds to login to fix the website - but not before getting behind a VPN since
28
now they were logging into the account and Wordpress.com will log their IP along
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 24

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
with the account information. Time: 1:21 pm IP: 173.188.133.5 This is captured by
the sites form submission software that looks like the Wordpress log in screen it is
not an IP logger.
e. The website administrator is able to determine that the two people hitting the site in
succession are in fact the same person because the IP logger doesn't show any hits
from IP:173.188.133.5. This means that the person using that IP got behind their VPN
after already loading the page, but before trying to sign in to their wordpress account.
If they had loaded the page after getting behind their VPN 173.188.133.5 would have
been captured by the IP logger pixel not just by the form submission.
10
119.
It was determined that this was Lane Lipton because the IP address: 69.121.50.17 -
11
comes back to Roslyn, NY the known home of Lane Lipton an ardent Bullyville detractor, and that IP
12
series had been previously identified as Liptons and @qritiqs. Lipton is the only loud and virulent
13
critic of BullyVille and McGibney known to be from the Roslyn, New York area, or anywhere close
14
thereby.
15
120.
The recovery phone number for she.purrs@hotmail.com ends in 01.
16
121.
On information and belief, Lane Liptons phone number ends in 01. The probability of
17
18
19
20
21
22
any two phone numbers two last digits matching is 1%.

122.
The admin login info entered was: Email or Username: she.purrs@hotmail.com
Password: not captured Time: March 7, 2014 at 3:21 pm IP Address: 173.188.133.5

123.
The she.purrs Hotmail account was a known or suspected email address for Lipton. A
subpoena will more clearly demonstrate this.

124.
The Internet Service Provider (ISP) for the IP address in question is the same ISP that
23
Lipton is known to use.
24
VII.
25
26
27
The Defendants Conspire to Damage Plaintiffs Business on itsabouttruth.wordpress.com

and bvfiles.wordpress.com.
125.
There are only a small handful that are openly hostile to Mr. McGibney, ViaView,
BullyVille.com and CheaterVille.com. These people are all loud about their grievances. On
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 25

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
information and belief, they also seek each other out, such that they may have strength in numbers.
Such was the case here.
126.
In addition to the endless barrage of defamation and harassment conducted by Defendants
through their various sock puppet accounts on Twitter and elsewhere, Defendants also conspired to
ruin Plaintiffs relationships with advertisers using at least two different websites,
itsabouttruth.wordpress.com (now defunct) and bvfiles.wordpress.com (still active).
7
8
9
10
11
127.
The bvfiles.wordpress.com site acknowledges that the @BV_Truth Twitter account
controlled by Defendant Retzlaff is also controlled by the administrators of bvtruth.wordpress.com.

128.
The content of bvfiles.wordpress.com and itsabouttruth.wordpress.com is very similar.
Both sites are dedicated to personally attacking Mr. McGibney and his business.
129.
The very first post on bvfiles.wordpress.com is a small post asking, Is McGibney a
12
pedophile? This poll was accompanied by statements strongly suggesting that Mr. McGibney is in fact
13
a pedophile. He is not. Defendants posted a picture of McGibneys children under the Pedophilia
14
comments with the caption are these children in danger? Statements such as these, relating that
15
someone is a pedophile are defamatory per se.
16
130.
The bvfiles.wordpress.com site contains a number of features demonstrating Retzlaffs
17
involvement: (1) it uses the same Internet Tough Guy image associated with several of Retzlaffs
18
aliases; (2) it consistently frames issues by reference to Texas or Texas state law.
19
131.
Defendants use the bvfiles.wordpress.com site as a meeting place to discuss their
20
attempts to destroy Plaintiffs relationships with advertisers. Posts titled The Economic Destruction of
21
James McGibney & ViaView and Comments from James McGibneys Advertisers detail the
22
Defendants attempts to ruin Plaintiffs business.
23
132.
On the site, Defendants repeat almost verbatim the same personal and defamatory attacks
24
against Mr. McGibney that they directed at him from Twitter: CheaterVille is a revenge porn site; Mr.
25
McGibney is a pedophile; Mr. McGibney has a fake degree; Mr. McGibney is engaged in extortion.
26
133.
Mr. McGibney earned a Bachelor's degree from Chadwick University while deployed
27
overseas as a United States Marine. Chadwick University was established in 1989, licensed and
28
approved by the state of Alabama, and offered accredited undergraduate and graduate degree programs
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 26

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
in business and environmental studies. Years later, Mr. McGibney learned that Chadwick was a
diploma mill. Horrified by this revelation, Mr. McGibney decided to earn another Bachelor degree
and did so through Colorado Technical University. He then earned a Masters in criminal justice from
Boston University. Furthermore, he attended Harvard Business School for his Executive Education. Far
from engaging in academic fraud as the defendants state, Mr. McGibney wrote his entrance essay to
Boston University about his experience of having to do his whole bachelors program over because of
issues with Chadwick University. Though defendants are aware of this, they perpetuate the narrative of
lies.
9
10
11
12
13
134.
bvfiles.wordpress.com repeatedly uses the first person plural we when discussing the
sites administrators. It is clearly run by more than one person.

135.
On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the two sites were run by the same small
group of individuals, including the named Defendants. Specifically:

136.
Defendant Lipton is an administrator of the bvfiles.wordpress.com site. She was
14
apprehended when she logged into a phony BVFiles site thinking it was hers, and her IP address was
15
captured. That IP address resolved to one known to be used by Lipton and @OccupyRebellion (which
16
later changed its name to @MissAnonNews).
17
137.
The BVFiles website repeatedly states that they use the twitter account @BV_Truth.
18
That account, on information and belief, belongs to Retzlaff, but is used by the Rauhauser, Lipton and
19
Doe Defendants 1 through 5.
20
138.
Defendant Retzlaff is also an administrator of the bvfiles.wordpress.com site.
21
139.
On information and belief, Defendant Rauhauser is an administrator of the
22
23
24
25
26
bvfiles.wordpress.com site.
140.
On information and belief, one or more of Doe Defendants 1 through 5 are administrators
or regular contributors to the bvfiles.wordpress.com site.

141.
Subpoenas to wordpress.com for subscriber information will reveal IP address
information establishing the identities of the sites administrators as Defendants.
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 27

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
142.
The Wordpress site is presently active. It boasts passing 50,000 views, and closing in on
100,000. They boast daily views of 5,000 to 6,000 individual people. Thus, by their own admission,
defendants have easily satisfied the publication element for defamation.
143.
As of March 13, 2014, the site was importuning people: Lets Destroy ViaView /
Cheaterville One Lawsuit at a Time! In that post, they sought to have people bring suits that are
contrary to the facts and law such that Plaintiffs would have to shutter their operations.
144.
They state: We want you people to comb through EACH AND EVERYONE of the
posts on Cheaterville.com for people who might want assistance in taking down James McGibney (who
we dont like) and his stupid revenge porn empire. We want you to Google these people and attempt to
10
make contact with them via Facebook, email, twitter or any other way that you can think of to let them
11
know that, yes, there is something that can be done about this problem and we have the resources and
12
willingness to help them! (bold in the original)
13
145.
Most posts on BVFiles have the parenthesis (who we dont like) after each mention of
14
Mr. McGibney. Thus, by their own admission, defendants are acting in concert with malice, spite and ill
15
will towards Mr. McGibney.
16
146.
On March 12, 2014, BVFiles listed the name of each board member of ViaView with a
17
notation of whether they were doxed and reported yet, and if they were not, the post promised to do so
18
soon. As a result, the minor children of at least one of these board members have been publicly
19
attacked. One such attack falsely stated, Nick the prick lives with his whore plastic wife at [location
20
redacted] who has a whore teenage daughter who fucks her father.
21
147.
Another March 12, 2014 post is titled with the defamation: James McGibney is a
22
criminal. It is a re-post of an earlier post, supposedly for all the new readers, and it falsely states that
23
Mr. McGibney has a fake diploma and committed academic fraud. In fact, Mr. McGibney has his
24
Masters Degree from Boston University and attended Harvard Business School for his Executive
25
Education.
26
148.
The site further states that Boston University is conducting an academic fraud
27
investigation. Representatives of Boston University have confirmed to Mr. McGibney that this is not
28
true.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 28

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
149.
In a post about counsel herein that went up right after this lawsuit was initially filed with
just Mr. Retzlaff as a named defendant, the administrators admit that there are four regular
administrators on the site.
150.
One post falsely relates Mr. McGibneys purported illegal hacking activities.
151.
One post states that a board member of ViaView owns a revenge porn site.
152.
Another post talks about a different ViaView board member owning a revenge porn site.
153.
One post involves doxing the folks behind ViaView.
154.
One post relates comments from advertisers that have left Plaintiffs websites as a result
of the combined actions of defendants herein.
10
155.
Several more posts falsely state Mr. McGibney has a fake college degree.
11
156.
One post is simply titled CheaterVille is a Revenge Porn Website.
12
157.
Another post queries: Is James McGibney a Pedophile? and comes to the conclusion
13
14
that because Mr. McGibney has not issued a public denial (he has denied this), he is a pedophile.
158.
Posts that attack, harass, defame and injure plaintiffs go on and on. There are sometimes
15
multiple entries each day. It is clear that a lot of thought, effort and energy goes into maintaining a site
16
dedicated to trying to destroy plaintiffs life and business. While this is a sad and pathetic use of a
17
human beings time, it is the reality of this case. This conduct must stop. Accordingly, we sue.
18
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19
Tortious Interference With Contractual Relations
20
21
22
159.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 158 of
this Complaint, and reincorporate them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
160.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants had actual or
23
constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs had valid contracts with multiple Internet advertising companies
24
and with celebrity sponsors of BullyVille.
25
161.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants formed an
26
agreement to work together in order to induce a breach or disruption of Plaintiffs contracts with
27
advertisers.
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 29

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
162.
In order to fulfill their intentions to damage Plaintiffs business, Defendants repeatedly
and systematically made fraudulent and frivolous complaints to Plaintiffs advertising partners and
sponsors.
4
5
6
163.
As a direct result of Defendants interference with Plaintiffs contracts and sponsors,
those contracts were breached and/or disrupted.

164.
Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as a result of Defendants contractual
interference, including, but not limited to, harm to Mr. McGibneys reputation, emotional distress, lost
earnings, and other pecuniary loss, all of which are in excess of $75,000.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
10
Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage
11
12
13
165.
166.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants had actual or
14
constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs had stable business relationships with multiple Internet
15
advertising companies and celebrity sponsors.
16
167.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants intended to
17
induce a disruption of Plaintiffs business relationships with advertisers, and to damage the prospect of
18
future relationships with new sponsors and advertisers.
19
20
21
22
23
168.
Toward that end, Defendants repeatedly and systematically made fraudulent and
frivolous complaints to Plaintiffs advertising partners and sponsors.

169.
As a direct result of Defendants fraudulent contact with Plaintiffs business partners,
those business relationships were disrupted and/or terminated.

170.
Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as a result of Defendants interference
24
with their business relationships, including, but not limited to, harm to Mr. McGibneys reputation,
25
emotional distress, lost earnings, and other pecuniary loss, all of which are in excess of $75,000.
26
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 30

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Mr. McGibney)
3
4
5
171.
172.
Defendants intentional and/or reckless campaign of harassment, death threats, and
intentional and/or reckless disclosure of Mr. McGibneys sensitive personal information on various
social media platforms was, as judged by a reasonable person standard, beyond the bounds of decency
and is therefore extreme and outrageous conduct.
173.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct alleged herein, Mr. McGibney
10
has suffered general and special damages including, without limitation, harm to Mr. McGibneys
11
reputation, emotional distress, lost earnings, and other pecuniary loss, all of which are in excess of
12
$75,000.
13
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14
Defamation (against Mr. McGibney)
15
16
17
18
19
174.
175.
Defendants tweets and other social media were read by hundreds or thousands of others
on the Internet, and constitute publication under the law.

176.
Defendants statements as described in Paragraphs 36, 39, 40, 48, 51, 54, 58, 60, 64-66,
20
71, 107-112, 129, 132, 144, 147, 150-152, and 155-157 of this Complaint are false and have a natural
21
tendency to injure the reputation and financial interests of Plaintiffs.
22
23
24
177.
Specifically, Defendants accusations that CheaterVille and BullyVille are revenge porn
websites were false and defamatory.

178.
To state that someone is a purveyor of revenge porn subjects them to scorn by the
25
community. Revenge porn is synonymous with extortion, with the exploitation of children and
26
vulnerable communities, with unlawful computer hacking, and is also a crime in many jurisdictions.
27
28
179.
Defendants false accusations that Mr. McGibney is a pedophile or pedo, were false.
They also had a natural tendency to injury Mr. McGibneys reputation and business interests.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 31

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
180.
Defendants statements that Mr. McGibney has a fake degree from Chadwick
university are false and were made with knowledge of their falsehood. Mr. McGibney earned a degree
in good faith. When later Chadwick was exposed as a diploma mill, Mr. McGibney went back to
school at Colorado Technical University and earned his bachelors degree.
5
6
7
181.
Defendants statements alleging that Boston University is conducting an academic fraud
investigation into Mr. McGibney are false, as confirmed by the university itself.
182.
Defendants false statements about Mr. McGibneys educationhis fake degree and
the alleged fraud investigationhave a natural tendency to harm Mr. McGibneys reputation and
business interests, as they impugn his honesty and integrity.
10
183.
Mr. McGibney is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that even though he is
11
not a public official or public figure (and thus a showing of actual malice is not required by the
12
First Amendment), that Defendants nevertheless made the aforementioned statements either knowing
13
they were false or in reckless disregard of the truth and with actual malice, hatred and ill will.
14
184.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct alleged herein, Mr. McGibney
15
has suffered general and special damages including, without limitation, harm to his reputation,
16
17
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18
Public Disclosure of Private Facts Invasion of Privacy (against Mr. McGibney)
19
20
21
185.
186.
Defendants publication of Mr. McGibneys personal details, including the name of his
22
wife and his home address, constituted a public disclosure of private facts and was highly offensive and
23
objectionable, judged by the standard of a reasonable person. None of the defendants postings at issue
24
constitute opinions that are protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
25
Instead, the Defendants postings are in fact verbal acts that are specifically intended to harass,
26
intimidate, annoy, cause worry, terrorize and impose as much mental anguish and pecuniary harm as
27
possible upon McGibney and as much pecuniary and business harm as possible to ViaView, Inc.
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 32

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
1
2
3
187.
The facts intentionally disclosed by Defendants were not of legitimate public concern.
They were personal, private, and wholly irrelevant to any other matter of public concern.
188.
As a direct and proximate result of Retzlaffs conduct alleged herein, Mr. McGibney has
suffered general and special damages including, without limitation, harm to his reputation, emotional
distress, lost earnings, and other pecuniary loss, all of which are in excess of $75,000.
RELATED LITIGATION
6
7
8
9
10
189.
Plaintiffs have filed a suit in Texas state court, but are in the process of withdrawing that
suit.
190.
Plaintiffs are also seeking a temporary restraining order in California Superior Court for
the County of San Jose against Defendant Retzlaff.

11
12
13
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial for all causes of action and issues which may be determined
under federal and/or California law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14
15
Plaintiffs request that this court:
16
a. declare that Defendants have tortuously interfered with Plaintiffs contractual relations and/or
17
prospective economic advantage;
18
b. preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from continuing to interfere with Plaintiffs
19
contractual relations and/or prospective economic advantage, including, but not limited to
20
taking bvfiles.wordpress.com offline;
21
c. award Plaintiffs general damages according to proof at trial;
22
d. award Plaintiffs special damages according to proof at trial;
23
e. award Plaintiffs exemplary damages;
24
f. award Plaintiffs attorneys fees and court costs where appropriate;
25
g. grant Plaintiffs any other relief the court deems just, equitable and proper.
26
27
Dated: 17 March 2014
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 33

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
By:___/s/_Jay Leiderman_________________
Jason S. Leiderman
JAMES MCGIBNEY
VIAVIEW, INC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 34

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Documentl Filed03/06/14 Pagel of 17
JASON S. LEIDERMAN, SBN 203336

2
3
4
5
6
jay~criminal-lawyer.me
LA OFFICES OF JAY LEIDERMAN

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
JAMES MCGIBNEY
VIA VIEW, INC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
JAMES MCGIBNEY, an individual, and

VIA VIEW, INC, a corporation,
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16
vs.
THOMAS RETZLAFF, an individual,
Defendant.
18
l
)
)
19
Case No .:
1 1 ~ C H 00 5 4 6 0
)
)
)
17
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS;
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE;
(3) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
(4) DEFAMATION;
(5) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE INVASION 0
PRIVACY
)
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
21
Plaintiffs James McGibney ("Mr. McGibney"), an individual , and ViaView, Inc. ("ViaView"), a
22
corporation (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), set forth the following causes of action against Defendant
23
Thomas Retzlaff ("Retzlaff'), and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
24
25.
1. Beginning in October 2013 and continuing through the present, Defendant has relentlessly
26
harassed, defamed, cyber-stalked and invaded the privacy of Mr. McGibney, in a deliberate effort to
27
emotionally harm him and fmancially damage his business, ViaView, Inc. In addition to committing
28
relentless personal attacks which included threats of violence, Defendant carried out a coordinated effort
COMPLAINT
Page 1

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Document! Filed03/06/14 Page2 of 17
1 1 ~ CH 00 5 4 6 0
to ruin Plaintiffs' relationships with advertisers and sponsors, costing Mr. McGibney and ViaView
2
thousands of dollars of revenue. Mr. McGibney asks this court to right these financial and personal
harms.
PAJRTIES
2. Plaintiff Mr. McGibney, at all relevant times mentioned herein, was and is now an individual
residing and domiciled in San Jose, Cal ifornia. He also owns residential property in Las Vegas, Nevada.
3. Plaintiff ViaView is a Delaware corporation with its business centers in San Jose, California and
Las Vegas, Nevada. Via View is the owner and operator of the popular websites
http://www.bullyville.com ("BullyVi lle"), http://www.karmaville.com ("Karma Ville"),
10
http://www.slingervi lle.com ("SlingerVille"), http://www.cupidville.com ("CupidVille") and
11
http://www.cheaterville.com ("CheaterVille").
12
13
4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendant Retzlaff was and is
now an individual residing and domiciled in Tarrant County, Texas.
JURISDICTION
14
15
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, as the parties in this case
16
are completely diverse and the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of
17
$75,000. Further, the Court has pendent and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged
18
herein pursuant to 28 U .S.C. 1367.
19
VENUE
20
6. A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims sued upon herein occurred in San Jose,
21
22
23
24
25
California.
7. Retzlaff is a resident of Texas, but has directed the conduct complained of herein at Plaintiffs,
who at all relevant times based in San Jose.
8. Retzlaff knew that Mr. McGibney's residence and domicile were in San Jose, California.
Indeed, he published Mr. McGibney's San Jose address.
26
9. On information and belief, Retzlaff knew Plaintiff ViaView was based on San Jose, California.
27
10. On information and belief, Retzlaff intentionally directed his conduct in order to cause harm to
28
Plaintiffs' interests in San Jose.
COMPLAINT
Page 2

5740 Ralston Street, Su ite 300
Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Document! Filed03/06/14 Page3 of 17
C H 00 5 4 6 0
1 1 4
~
1
2
11. Therefore, venue lies in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2),
and this court's exercise of jurisdiction in this case is reasonable and appropriate.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4 I.
5
6
Plaintiffs' Opera te Popular Anti-Bullying Websites BullyVille and CheaterVille.

12. Mr. McGibney and his business ViaView operate the websites Bull yVille and CheaterVille (the
"Websites").
13. The Websites aim to give a voice to those victimized by bullying (BullyVille) or romantic
infidelity (CheaterVille) by providing a public platform upon which victims may tell their stories.
9
10
14. Like many Internet-based businesses, the primary revenue source for the Websites comes from
advettisers.
11
15. All ViaView sites average approximately one million individual and unique user hits per month.
12
16. Plaintiffs are and were at all times relevant to this suit parties to numerous contracts with
13
advertisers, including but not limited to:
14
a. Spokeo.com
15
b. Lijit.com
16
c. Advertise.com
17
d. Godaddy.com
18
e. Digit covers
19
17. Combined advertising revenue lost as the resu lt of defendant's conduct exceeds $19,300 per
20
month. This loss does not include other losses described herein. The calculations of loss for the effect
21
upon other advertisers that would have been drawn to the sites, or from the loss of clicks toward
22
advertisers that have remained, attributable directly to the direct harassment of Mr. McGibney or the
23
harassment of celebrity spokespeople described in detail herein, has ratcheted up the loss to at least
24
$250,000.00 already, and that amount grows each day.
25
18. Prior to Retzlaff's conduct complained of herein, Plaintiffs enjoyed a good working relationship
26
with his advertisers listed in paragraph 11 and most advertisers had been doing business with ViaView
27
continuously for two or more years. Visits to his site were growing and he had no problems with
28
COMPLAINT
Page 3

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Documentl Filed03/06/14 Page5 of 17
ll~CH005460
They had the further purpose of creating the illusion of broad support for Retzlaffs extreme views while
2
3
he carried out his stalking and cyber-terrorism.

26. The names and accounts Retzlaff used include, but are not limited to:
a. The Twitter account @MrTexxxan;
b. An account named LongJohnSilver on BullyVille;
c. A Facebook account for user Scott Jewels;
d. A Facebook account for user Molly Santucci;
e. The Twitter account @KellySwift4;
f.
A Facebook account for user Kelly Swift;
10
g. E-mail alias James Smith: james.smith871003@gmail.com;
11
h. TheDirty.com alias DickHertz,
12
1.
The Twitter account @PedoCaptain;
13
J.
The Twitter account @bright_Anon;
14
k. The Twitter account @BV_ Truther;
15
I.
16
m. The Twitter account @Klansmann; and
17
n. E-mail alias Dean Allen: deanallen5634@outlook.com.
18
The Twitter account @BV_Truth;
27. Plaintiffs have taken numerous steps to confirm that it is Retz laff behind each alias or "sock"
19
listed herein, including but not limited to lawfully tracking internet protocol addresses, mac addresses 1
20
and matching email addresses between accounts. Mr. Retzlaff does not take significant steps to conceal
21
his identity online besides using multiple names and accounts and a less-than-stable VPN 2 connection.
22
Plaintiff is certain he can prove that all accounts complained of herein belong to Retzlaff.
23
24
25
26
27
28
I lnternet Protocol or IP addresses are unique addresses that show what computer is creating the packets sent through the
internet. A MAC address is the functional equivalent of a serial number. Both are part of the metadata that computers
exchange as part of routine internet traffic, including visiting websites and sending emails.
2
A VPN, or " virtual private network," is a technology that allows a user to obscure his true IP address by encrypting that
user's traffic and routing it through a separate IP address.
COMPLAINT
Page 5
LAW OFFICE S OF JAY LEIDERMAN

Tel: 805 -654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Documentl Filed 03/06/14 Page6 of 17
1 1 ~ C H 0 0 5 11 6 0
28. Pla intiffs reasonably anticipate that Retz laff will continue to create multip le a liases to harass,
2
sta lk, terrorize and defame Plaintiffs and their business partners in order to continue inflicting emotional
and financial harm.
29. On October 30,2013, Retzlaff publicly tweeted from the @ MrTexxxan account (an account
associated with revenge porn website www.texxxan.com) that he was "surprised no o ne has shot them
foo ls [Mr. Me Gibney] yet. lots of crazy ppl in the world off their meds"
30. The @MrTexxx an account has since been suspended by Tw itter.
3 1. On November 2, 2013, Retzlaff, posting using alias " LongJohnSil ve r," wrote severa l paragraphs
in the comments section of an a tticle published on Bully Ville targeting Mr. McGibney, stating, " If I wa
10
listed on his website I would put a bullet in his head. It' s as simple as that. .. . You walk up behind
11
him at a Wal-mart of whatnot, you shot [sic] him and take off, dump the gun in Lake Mead or
12
somewhere and you' re go [sic] to go. So go ahead James, keep it up. Sooner or later you 're going to
13
step on the wrong set of toes and you' re going to come across a real life tough guy, not an internet tough
14
guy like a Hunter Moore,l31 and it's gonna cost you and your fa mily your lives."
15
32. On November 2, 2013, Retzlaff replied to a comment on Bu llyVille with his "LongJohnSilver"
16
ali as "Crazy people do not care if they get caught. They will kill you regardless as to the consequences
17
to them because they are crazy. So while it's a ll well and good that the FBI will eventua lly catch them
18
(ass uming they' re not on e ofthe 40% who literally get away with murder), it does you little good if
19
you're the dead guy or the dead family ."
20
21
33. On or around November 3, 201 3, Retzlaff, using alias " Scott Jewels," wrote in the comments
section of an article discussing a lawsuit filed by a stalking victim:
22
a. "James McGibney at BullyV ill e is a lying piece of huma n g arbage."
23
b. " Obviously [a famous single mother] 4 and Bullyville's allegations are a comp lete lie.
24
That f@ggot who runs BullyVille, James McGibney was screaming and hollering
25
26
27
28
Hunter Moore is a well-known personality who p ioneered the "revenge porn" website genre on his site, isanyoneup.com.
Mr. McGibney secured a $250,000 judgment against Hunter Moore for conduct similar to that alleged here. Moore is
currently under federal indictment for hacking conspiracy charges.
4
McGibney became involved in the defense of a woman when she was viciously attacked by people over the internet. T he
comments referenced in paragraphs 33 reflect his involvement in that suit.
COMPLAINT
Page 6
LAW OFFICE S OF JAY LE IDERMAN

5740 R alston Street, Suite 300
Ven tura, California 93003
Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Documentl Filed03/06/14 Pag e7 of 17
1 1 ~ C H 00 5 4 6 0
about how he (McGibney) was going to get Jon and all of his supporters and how Jon
2
was a thief and physically abused [the mother] and all sorts of nonsense. I hope Jon
sued McGibney and his homo attorney to death ."
c. "James McGibney is a lying homosexual."
d. "James and Christina McGibney live at [redacted for safety], they own a revenge porn
7
8
9
10
website Cheaterville."
34. On the same website, at around the same time, Retzlaff posted the name of Mr. McGibney's wife
and their home address a second time.
35. On the same website, Retzlaff amplified his harassment by also using the alias "Molly Santucci,''
agreeably replying to posts by "Scott Jewels."
11
36. On November 15, 2013, Retzlaff again used the alias Molly Santucci to directly contact DJ
12
ASHBA via Facebook. Mr. Ashba, as is described below, is a musician and celebrity spokesperson for
13
BullyVille. Mr. Ashba was falsely told that CheaterVille is a "revenge porn website" and Retzlaff, via
14
"sock" accounts encouraged DJ ASHBA to " remove [his] endorsement and end [his] relationship with
15
revenge porn Bu llyVille!!!!!!! !"
16
37. On the same day, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @KellySwift4, tweeted a similar statement to Mr.
17
Ashba: "@DjASHBA Why do you support revenge porn w/ ur BullyVille endorsements? Don't u know
18
BY runs Cheaterv ille revenge porn site too?!!"
19
38. Mr. Ashba is a musician with a world-famous rock group. His endorsement created a lot of
20
interest in BullyVille from advertisers new and old. Plaintiffs estimate he drove hundreds of thousands
21
of vis itors to BullyVille every month.
22
39. After receiving these and other unwanted messages from Retzlaff, and learning that Retz laff was
23
convicted of a felony and served time in prison, Mr. Ashba became fearful for his safety and the safety
24
of his family.
25
26
40. Mr. Ashba has reduced his role in BullyVille significantly as a result of Retzlaff's conduct and
because Mr. Ashba has concerns for his personal safety that he did not previously have.
27
28
COMPLAINT
Page 7

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Documentl Filed03/06/14 PageS of 17
1
1
1 4 c 1-l oo 5 4 6 0
..J
41. Plaintiffs estimate the loss of Mr. Ashba as a sponsor has, and will continue to, cost Plaintiffs at
least $9,300 per month in advertising revenue as a result of fewer site visitors and significantly less
interest from new advettisers.
42. Retzlaff has not only harassed Mr. Ashba in connection with his campaign against Mr.
McGibney. He has harassed Via View's PR firm, Lexicon Public Relations and celebrity Becca Tobin
from GLEE on FOX. Each distanced themselves from BullyVille due to safety concerns caused by
Retzlaff s harassment campaign. This has caused an additional loss of revenue for Via View.
43. Again on November 15,2013, using Twitter alias @Doxing_McGibney,5 Retzlaff publicly
8
9
10
tweeted Mr. McGibney's wife's name and their Las Vegas address. Retzlaff further tweeted Mr.
McGibhey 's San Jose address.
11
44. On November 15, and November 26,2013, Retzlaff, using email alias James Smith, sent
12
harassing e-mails to blogger Adam Steinbaugh. In these e-mails, Retzlaff threatened to release private
13
information about Mr. McGibney:
14
a. "I happen to work for a large multi -national company overseas, as I mentioned to you
15
before. As such, my HR Dept. has access to the LexisNexis Accurint LE Plus and
16
ChoicePoint CLEAR databases so as to fulfill all of our Govt contracts and regulatory
17
requirements. So ifl were to say look up an Adam Steinbaugh or a James McGibney,
18
I would have access to a whole host of valuable personal, financial, and legal
19
information. What kind of car they drive, who they bank with, where they have lived
20
at for the past 20 yrs. (and who with), credit reports, traffic and arrest info, property
21
transactions, civil cases, any kind of hunting, fishing or drivers licenses, or trade
22
licenses, and just pages and pages worth of stuff. But not just on them, but on each of
23
their family members, too! And the family members of those family members."
24
b. "And if that information on all those people found its way to a document hosting site,
25
well, that would be just too bad, wou ldn' t it? But then again, you guys started this
26
27
28
" Dox" is a common Internet abbreviation for "documents," usually referring to personal information. "Doxing" is the acto
publishing such personal information.
COMPLAINT
Page 8

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805 -654-0280
11 ~ C H 00 5 4 6 0
game first. So how would Mrs. McGibney feel to find her personal details doxed or
2
her family members doxed? Or Mr. & Mrs. Steinbaugh? You think they all want to
be involved in you guys' game of doxing people and ordering twitter followers to
'destroy their li ves' like Bullyville and Cpt Obvious always call for?"
45. On November 28, 2013, Retzlaff, on the website radaronline.com, using alias Scott Jewels,
publicly wrote: "Now he [Mr. McGibney] throws rocks at random people from his Bullyville website.
McGibney also runs REVENGE PORN website Cheaterville. McGibney charges people $199 in order
to remove their photos and posts. McGibney is fi lth."
46. That statement is false and, as with all of the others, it was made with the knowledge of its
10
falsehood and with actual malice. Neither Mr. McGibney, nor ViaView, charge anyone to remove their
11
posts from CheaterVille, nor do they allow pornography- or any nudity for that matter.
12
47. On that same date, and through his @mrtexxxan Twitter account, Defendant Retzlaff tweeted "It
13
will be reall y funny seeing someone post pies of ur wife Christina when she is shopping at Smith 's with
14
ur two kids."
15
48. On December 6, 20 13, Retzlaff, using alias DickHertz, publicly posted on TheDirty.com : "James
16
& Christina McGibney run Bullyville website, a site that HATES Nik and the Dirty. Yet McGibney and
17
his wife also run revenge pom site CheaterVil le! And they also work with scam take Down Hammer
18
site TruthlnPosting.com to charge little girls $199 to remove Cheaterville pies and posts. Talk about
19
hypocrites! McGibney and his wife scam girls with revenge porn, but they hate Hunter Moore and
20
Nik!!!"
21
49. This is another complete and intentional lie by Retzlaff. Users of CheaterVille have the option to
22
login and make their post invisible. Furthermore, CheaterVi lle adheres to all DMCA takedown requests
23
within 48 hours.
24
50. Defendant Retzlaff has claimed on multiple occasions that ViaView and McGibney own
25
TruthlnPosting, which is another false claim. TruthlnPosting is an arbitration service, run by licensed
26
mediators and attorneys. Neither Plaintiff owns T IP, nor do they "charge little g irls $ 199 to remove
27
Cheaterville pies and posts" as Retzlaff falsely claims they do.
28
COMPLAINT
Page 9

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Documentl Filed 03/Q6/14 PagelO of 17
1 1 4 C H 00
-
5460
.-J
51. On December II , 20 13, Retzlaff, using Facebook alias Kelly Swift, publicly contacted Plaintiffs'
2
business pmtner Brickhouse Security, stating: " Why are you people advettising on a revenge
pornography website? I find this VERY DISGUE STING!! [sic] You are helping to support the
victimization of women and children!!! Cheaterville.com is a revenge porn website that charges girls
$199 to remove photos. Same with Bullyville.com, its [sic] all terrible and you should not advertise on
there. YOU NEED TO PULL YOUR ADS NOW!!!!"
52. Brickhouse Security's Facebook account repli ed: "Thank you for bringing this up to our
attention. We certainly do not want to be associated with any websites that would damage our brand.
We will look into the matter and take the necessary actions to prevent this from happening again. Thank
10
you, Brickhouse Security Team."
11
53. Shortly thereafter, Brickhouse Security pulled all ads from CheaterVille.
12
54 . On December 17, 2013, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @PedoCaptain, publicly tweeted at
13
BullyVi lle ' s Twitter account: "@BullyVille I would like to bury a hatchet right in your fucking
14
damn face. Public info: [address redacted]- vegas [sic.] ANYONE?????"
15
55 . On or around December 26, 20 13, Retzlaff, using Facebook alias Kelly Swift, publicly posted
16
further accusations on the Facebook page of a BullyVille advertiser that Mr. McGibney was operating a
17
"revenge porn" website.
18
56. On December 30, 2013 and January 7, 20 14, Retzlaff, using E-mail alias James Smith, sent Mr.
19
McGibney harassing e-mails which mentioned "advertisers . . . dropping you like a bad habit" and
20
"celebrities [who] are runny [sic.] away as fast as they can." It conti nued: "You've got a business to run
21
here and putting up crazy, irrational tweets isn't go ing to make customers comf01table or advettisers
22
happy. "
23
57. On January 15, 20 14, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @bright_Anon publicly tweeted: "[] Did u
24
know that McGibney charges girls $199 to remove their intimate photos and personal details?
25
Bullyville also works with his... " Defendant Retz laff made claims that anti-bullying website BullyVille
26
was a " revenge porn website." This claim is, of course, absolutely false and without any merit
27
whatsoever, was made with the knowledge of its falsehood and with actual spite, ill will and malice.
28
COMPLArNT
Page 10

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Document! Filed03/06/14 Pagell of 17
1 1 4 C H 00
5460
58. On January 16, 18, and 22 2014, Retzlaff, using E-mail alias James Sm ith, sent Mr. McGibney
2
further e-ma ils disc ussing his re lationship with advertisers: "And is not call ing an advertiser to complain
a perfectly legitimate form of expression? . .. The only person killing your advet1ising is you, sir. And
you damn well know it! "
59. Thee-mails acknowledge Retzlaffs intent to ruin Plaintiffs' re lationships with advet1isers: "I
spent a total for 30 minutes- all together - with my complaints to your advertisers. That includes time
spent on hold. And look how obviously effective it has been!!"
8
9
60. On January 23,2014, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @BV_Truther, publicly tweeted:
"@Bully Ville Yes, because getting into a pointless twitter fight w/ someone who has nothing to lose is a
10
winning strategy for ur family." This was a response to a tweet from BullyVille which read , "Strong
11
people stand up for themselves but the strongest people stand up for others." The header (description)
12
for @ BY_Truther was "exposing the truth about Bullyville's lies by calling HR Dept's one at a time and
13
getting ads on revenge porn sites shut down as soon as they pop up!"
14
61. On February 2, 2014, Retzlaff, posting on an anonymous account, submitted pictures and text
15
disparaging Mr. McGibney on www.myex.com, anactual revenge porn website.6 The post was titled
16
"James McGibney is a lying hypocrite who cheats! !" and stated that Mr. McGibney "extot1s money
17
from young girls and their families over the internet. He is the scum of the earth."
18
62. This post, which created a web page titled "Naked Pies of James A. McGibney - Las Vegas -
19
Nevada: MyEx.com" appeared in Google search results for James McGibney, meaning that when
20
someone would search for information about PlaintiffMcGibney, this false and defamatory post would
21
be listed in the results. The post did not in fact include any naked pictures.
63. On February 8, 2014, Retzlaff, using E-mail alias Dean Allen, sent an incredibly lengthy e-mail
22
23
to numerous members of Via View's board of directors, falsely claiming that "Cheaterville.com is a
24
revenge porn website that engages in the abuse of young women and girls (and men!) by posting their
25
intimate photographs and personal information."
26
27
28
The very top of the front page ofwww.myex.com says "GET REVENGE." It specifically hosts "Nude Photos" along with
names, ages, and locations of the subjects of these nude photos, which are posted without the subject's consent. A clearer
violation of California's revenge porn law, Penal Code 653.2(a)(2), is barely imaginable.
COMPLAINT
Page 11

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
1- 1 1 C H 00 5 4 6 0
~
64. In this e-mail, Retzlaff ventured into extortion by stating that McGibney needed to delete all
"Ville" websites and permanently delete all data contained within each website and his @bullyville
twitter account or the attacks would continue.
65. In the same e-mail, Retzlaff admits knowledge that CheaterVille "does not post nude photos."
66. On February 8, 2014, Retzlaff, using alias @BV_Truth, falsely tweeted that Mr. McGibney had
threatened him: "@Sarelya23 And how difficult is it to send yourself a nasty email and then claim that
ur enemy did it? BY keeps sending ME death threats"
67. On February 9, 2014, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @BY_Truth, tweeted: " I wonder what
happened to all the advertisers on Bullyville & Cheaterville. Several months ago it used to be FILLED
10
with ads." Shortly thereafter he launched a blog via the "wordpress" platform which not only continues
11
to defame and libel Plaintiffs McGibney and ViaView, but is currently being used to viciously attack
12
numerous board members of ViaView. As one example, Retzlaff created and posted a poll asking
13
whether James McGibney is a pedophile. This poll was accompanied by statements strongly suggesting
14
that Mr. McGibney is in fact a pedophile. He is not. Defendant Retzlaff posted a picture of MeG ibney' s
15
children under the Pedophilia comments with the caption "are these children in danger?"
16
68. During this time period (October 2013 -present), Retzlaff posted numerous harassing and
17
defamatory things on a now defunct blog at http://itsabouttruth.wordpress.com. His conduct included
18
coordinating attacks against McGibney and ViaView with other blog members on Via View advertisers.
19
Retzlaff still operates an active blog dedicated to stalking and defaming Mr. McGibney and Via View.
20
69. As recently as March 3, 2014, Defendant Retzlaff sent an email to the school principal of one of
21
the board members children and caused such fear that the child has been removed from the school for
22
her safety and for the safety of other children. The local Police Department in Orange County were
23
immediately contacted and an investigation has been launched against Defendant Retzlaff. This is now
24
the fifth police investigation launched against Thomas Retzlaff across the country (Las Vegas, Northern
25
and Southern California, San Antonio and F01t Worth.)
26
27
70. As a direct result of Retzlaff s harassment of ViaView's board of directors and business partners,
two potential investors in ViaView began to fear for their safety. This fear of Retzlaff caused these two
28
COMPLAINT
Page 12

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Documentl Filed03/06!14 Page14 of 17
1 1 ~ C H 00 5 4 6 0
1
80. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Retzlaff had actual or
constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs had stable business relationships with multiple Internet
advertising companies and celebrity sponsors.
81. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Retzlaff intended to induce a
disruption of Plaintiffs' business relationships with advertisers, and to damage the prospect offuture
relationships with new sponsors and advertisers.
7
8
9
I0
11
82. Toward that end, Retzlaff repeatedly and systematically made fraudulent and frivolous
complaints to Plaintiffs' advertising partners and sponsors.
83. As a direct result of Retzlaffs fraudulent contact with Plaintiffs' business partners, those
business relationships were disrupted and/or terminated.
84. Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as a result of Retzlaffs interference with their
12
business relationships, including, but not limited to, harm to Mr. McGibney' s reputation, emotional
13
distress, lost earnings, and other pecuniary loss, all ofwhich are in excess of$75,000.
14
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
15
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Mr. McGibney)
16
17
18
85. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 84 ofthis
Complaint, and reincorporate them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
86. Retzlaff s intentional and/or reckless campaign of harassment, death threats, and intentional
19
and/or reckless disclosure of Mr. McGibney's sensitive personal information on various social media
20
platforms was, as judged by a reasonable person standard, beyond the bounds of decency and is
21
therefore extreme and outrageous conduct.
22
87. As a direct and proximate result of Retzlaffs conduct alleged herein, Mr. McGibney has suffere
23
general and special damages including, without limitation, harm to Mr. McGibney's reputation,
24
25
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26
Defamation (against Mr. McGibney)
27
28
88. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 87 of this
COMPLAINT
Page 14

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Documentl Filed03/06/14 PagelS of 17
1 1 4 C H 00
~
1
2
-'
5460
89. Retzlaff's tweets and other social media were read by hundreds or thousands of others on the
Internet, and constitute publication under the law.
90. Retzlaff's statements as described in Paragraphs 33, 36, 37, 43, 45, 48 , 51, 55, 57, 61 -63,66 and
67 of this Complaint are false and have a natural tendency to Injure the reputation and financial interests
of Pfaintiffs.
91. Specifically, Retzlaff's accusations that CheaterVille and BullyVille are "revenge porn websites"
were false and defamatory. These false statements had a natural tendency to injure Mr. McGibney's
reputation and business interests, and were, in fact, deliberately made in order to harm Mr. McGibney.
92. Using Twitter account @bv_truther Retzlaff posted links to a known Pedophilia site which had
10
numerous rantings and ramblings about Mr. McGibney. Mr. McGibney is a married father with three
11
young children. He and his family live in fear, suffer tremendous anxiety and worry. His wife has
12
suffered severe stress and anxiety about her safety, Mr. McGibney's safety and the safety of their
13
children.
14
93. Mr. McGibney is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that even though he is not a
15
"public official" or "public figure" (and thus a showing of "actual malice" is not required by the First
16
Amendment), that Retzlaff nevertheless made the aforementioned statements either knowing they were
17
false or in reckless disregard of the truth and with actual malice, hatred and ill will.
18
94. As a direct and proximate result of Retzlaff' s conduct alleged herein, Mr. McGibney has suffere
19
general and special damages including, without limitation, harm to his reputation, emotional distress,
20
lost earnings, and other pecuniary loss, all of which are in excess of $75,000.
21
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
Public Disclosure of Private Facts Invasion of Privacy (against Mr. McGibney)
23
24
25
95. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 94 of this
96. Retzlaff's publication of Mr. McGibney's personal details, including the name of his wife and
26
his home address, constituted a public disclosure of private facts and was highly offensive and
27
objectionable, judged by the standard of a reasonable person. None of the defendant's postings at issue
28
constitute opinions that are protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

COMPLAINT
Page 15

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
1 1 ~ C H 00 5 4 6 0
Instead, the Defendants postings are in fact verbal acts that are specifically intended to harass,
2
intimidate, annoy, cause worry, terrorize and impose as much mental anguish and pecuniary harm as
possible upon McGibney and as much pecuniary and business harm as possib le to ViaView, Inc.
4
5
6
97. The facts intentionally disclosed by Retzlaff were not of legitimate public concern. They were
personal, private, and wholly irrelevant to any other matter of public concern.
98. As a direct and proximate result of Retzlaff's conduct alleged herein, Mr. McGibney has suffere
general and special damages including, without limitation, harm to his reputation, emotional distress,
lost earnings, and other pecuniary loss, all of which are in excess of $75,000.
RELATED LITIGATION
10
99. Plaintiffs have filed a suit in Texas state court, but are in the process of withdrawing that suit.
11
12
13
Plaintiffs intend to refile separate suits against each of the named defendants in the Texas suit.
100.
Plaintiffs are also seeking a temporary restraining order in California Superior Court for
the County of San Jose.
14
15
16
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial for all causes of action and issues which may be detemiined
under federal and/or California law.
17
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
18
Plaintiffs request that this court:
19
a. declare that Retzlaff has tortuously interfered with Plaintiffs' contractual relations
20
21
22
and/or prospective economic advantage;

b. permanently enjoin Retzlaff from continuing to interfere with Plaintiffs' contractua l
relations and/or prospective economic advantage;
23
c. award Plaintiffs general damages according to proof at trial;
24
d. award Plaintiffs special damages according to proof at trial;
25
e. award Plaintiffs exemplary damages;
26
f. award Plaintiffs attorneys' fees and court costs where appropriate;
27
g. grant Plaintiffs any other relief the court deems just, equitable and proper.
28
COMPLAINT
Page 16

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Documentl Filed03/06/14 Pagel? of 17
1 1 4 C H00 5 4 6 0
Dated: 6 March 2014
LAW OFFICES 01' JAY LEIDERMAN
2
By:_ /s/ _Jay Leiderman
Jason S. Leiderman
JAMES MCGIBNEY
VIA VIEW, INC
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
Page 17

Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280
NO. 67-270669-14
JAMES MCGIBNEY and
VIAVIEW, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THOMAS RETZLAFF, LORA
LUSHER, JENNIFER
DALLESANDRO, NEAL
RAUHAUSER,
MISSANNONEWS, JANE DOE 1,
JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3,
JANE DOE 4, AND JANE DOE 5,
Defendants
67th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO HIS SPECIAL APPEARANCE, DEFENDANT NEAL RAUHAUSERS

ORIGINAL ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, JURY DEMAND, AND
REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE
Subject to, and without waiving, his challenge to the Courts exercise
of personal jurisdiction over him as set forth in his Special Appearance also
filed this day, defendant Neal Rauhauser files his Original Answer, Jury
Demand, Requests for Disclosure, and Counterclaims, and would
respectfully show the Court as follows:
I. GENERAL DENIAL
1.
Pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 92, Rauhauser generally denies all
of plaintiffs allegations and demands strict proof thereof.
II. REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE

2.
Rauhauser requests that plaintiffs separately disclose all
information or material described in TEX. R. CIV. P. 194.2.

III. JURY DEMAND
3.
Pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 216, Rauhauser asserts his right to a
trial by jury under TEX. CONST. Art. 1, 15, and makes this demand for a
jury trial at least 30 days before the date set for trial. Rauhauser tenders the
jury fee of $30.00 herewith, as required by TEX. GOVT CODE 51.604.
IV. COUNTERCLAIMS
4.
The signing and filing of a pleading or motion constitutes the
certificate by the signatory that

(1)
the pleading is not presented for an improper purpose, such as

to harass the opposing party 10.001(1);
(2)
each claim or legal contention in the pleading is warranted by

existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law 10.001(2);
(3)
each factual contention has evidentiary support or is likely to

have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
discovery 10.001(3); and
(4)
each denial of a factual contention is warranted on the

evidence 10.001(4).
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 10.001; Barkhausen v. Craycom, Inc., 178
S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). The
statutes use of the conjunctive and means that each pleading must satisfy
McGibney v. Retzlaff
Neal Rauhausers Original Answer, Jury Demand, Requests for Disclosure, and Counterclaims
all four requirements. Id. The signer certifies that each claim and each
allegation is based on the signatorys best knowledge, information, and
belief, formed after reasonable inquiry. Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609,
614 (Tex. 2007). The statute dictates that each claim and each allegation be
individually evaluated for support. Id. Each claim against each defendant
must satisfy chapter 10. Id.
5.
Both plaintiffs and their attorneys are subject to sanctions under
10.002(c) and 10.004(a).

6.
A successful movant may recover trial and appellate attorneys
fees and costs incurred in his defense of a frivolous suit. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE 10.004(c)(3). The test is objectivewhether allegations in the
pleading lack evidentiary support or legal foundation. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE 10.001(2)-(3). Although a party may be sanctioned under
10.001(1) for presenting a pleading for an improper purpose, the tests for a
nonfrivolous legal basis under 10.001(2) and for evidentiary support for
contentions under 10.001(3) are not what plaintiffs subjectively intended
when they signed and filed the offending pleading. Thus, a frivolous suit
can subject a plaintiff or counsel to sanction even if the violation was not
willful.
Cf. Thottumkal v. McDougal, 251 S.W.3d 715, 719-20 (Tex.
Defendant Neal Rauhausers Original Answer, Jury Demand, Requests for Disclosure, and Counterclaims
App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (Edelman, J., concurring

opinion).
7.
If the frivolous pleading was filed because of the lack of
diligence in investigating the suits legal and factual underpinnings (rather

than despite it), then a court may award a movant the additional sanction of
costs for inconvenience, harassment, and out-of-pocket expenses incurred or
caused by the subject litigation.
Id. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
10.002(c). Of particular relevance in the case at bar, a time-barred claim is

legally groundless when, as here, inquiry would have revealed that
limitations had run. Thottumkal, 251 S.W.3d at 718.
V. PRAYER
8.
For these reasons, Rauhauser prays that the Court enter a
judgment that plaintiffs take nothing by their claims in this suit, and that
Rauhauser have and recover of plaintiffs:
(i)
all reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of

plaintiffs legally groundless suit through trial and appeal;
(ii)
all expert witness fees and other out-of-pocket expenses

incurred by reason of plaintiffs legally and factually
groundless suit; and
(iii)
such other and further relief, at law or in equity, as to which

Rauhauser shall show himself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Dorrell
Jeffrey L. Dorrell
State Bar No. 00787386
jdorrell@hanszenlaporte.com
Philip A. Meyer
pmeyer@hanszenlaporte.com
11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 850
Houston, Texas 77079
Telephone: 713-522-9444
FAX: 713-524-2580
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NEAL RAUHAUSER
.
Defendant Neal Rauhausers Original Answer, Jury Demand, Requests for Disclosure, and Counterclaims
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on
foregoing was sent by:
3-18
, 2014, a true and correct copy of the
Hand delivery
Certified mail
Telephonic document transfer
E-service in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P. 21a(a)(1)
in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P. 21a to the following counsel of record:

Mr. John S. Morgan
jmorgan@jsmorganlaw.com
Morgan Law Firm
2175 North Street, Suite 101
Telephone: 409-239-5984
FAX: 409-835-2700
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
JEFFREY L. DORRELL
NO. 67-270669-14
JAMES MCGIBNEY and

VIAVIEW, INC.,
Plain tiffs,
v.
LUSHER, JENNIFER
D' ALLESANDRO, NEAL
RAUHAUSER,
Defendants
SUBJECT TO HIS SPECIAL APPEARANCE, DEFENDANT NEAL RAUHAUSER'S

MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ACT
The Court should dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims against

Rauhauser in accordance with TEX. Crv. PRAC. & REM.
CODE 27 because: (i) Rauhauser shows that plaintiffs'
claims "relate to" Rauhauser's exercise of the right of free
speech; and (ii) plaintiffs cannot show "clear and specific
evidence" of each essential element of each claim asserted.
I. INTRODUCTION
I.
Plaintiffs filed this $1,000,000, Level 3 suit against Rauhauser
for defamation, defamation per se, harassment, stalking, intentional

infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with business relations,
business disparagement, and "gross negligence per se in violation of TEX.
PEN. CODE 22.07, 1 42.07, and 42.072" ansmg from alleged Internet
postings that plaintiffs characterize as "unlawful verbal acts." 2
2.
None of the named defendants has been served. According to
Court personnel, as of March 19, 2014, "none of the citations had even been
picked up." Although plaintiffs seek injunctive relief after what they refer to
as a "Temporary Injunction Trial,"3 plaintiffs have not sought a temporary
restraining order, requested a temporary injunction hearing, or taken any
other action to obtain such relief from the Court. This is because plaintiffs
cannot make the required showings.
3.
This case has not been set for trial.
4.
Rauhauser attaches affidavits and other evidence to this motion
as Exhibits A-F to establish facts not apparent from the record, and
incorporates them by reference.
TEx. PENAL CODE 22.07 is an assaultive offense captioned "Terroristic

Threat" of which intent by the actor to "place the public or a substantial group of the
public in fear of serious bodily injury," inter alia, is a required element. See, e.g. , TEX.
PENAL CODE 22.07(a)(5). TEX. PENAL CODE 42.07, captioned "Harrassment," also
requires intent. See TEX. PENAL CODE 22.07(a). There is no provision for a private
cause of action under these statutes. Furthermore, it is unclear how a person could
"negligently" violate a penal statute of which intent is a required element.
2
See Plaintiffs' Original Petition, ~ 17, for plaintiffs' allegations of
"defamation," "defamation p er se," "harassment," and "stalking." See ~ 19 for the
allegation of "intentional infliction of emotional distress." See ~ 20 for the allegations
of "tortious interference with business relationships" and "business disparagement."
See ~ 21 for the allegation of "gross negligence per se in violation of TEX. PEN. CODE
22.07, 42.07, and 42.072." See ~ 22 for the allegation of"unlawful verbal acts."
3
See Plaintiffs' Original Petition, ~~ 22-23.
2
II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
A. The Citizen Participation Act's Broad Protections and Procedural

Requirements
5.
The Texas Legislature enacted the Citizens Participation Act
("the Act") to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of a

defendant to speak freely and otherwise participate in government to the
maximum extent provided by law.4 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 27.002.
6.
To protect the rights of free speech by cost-effective means, the
Act requires the Court to determine at an early stage whether a suit affecting
such rights has merit. Rauhuser invokes the Court's determination by filing
this "motion to dismiss." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 27.003(a), (b).
7.
The filing of this motion stays all discovery until the Court
rules on the motion. Id. 27.003(c). The Court must rule on the motion "not
later than the 30th day following the date of the hearing on the motion." Jd.
27.005(a). The hearing on the motion must be held within 60 days of
service of the motion, in most cases. Id. 27.004(a).
The Act is commonly known as an "anti-SLAPP statute," referring to the

acronym for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation," or "SLAPP suits." By
definition, SLAPP suits are brought not because the plaintiffs believe they can prevail on
the merits, but to discourage public exercise of constitutional rights by using the fear of a
defendant's having to incur the expense to defend even a .frivolous suit. The widespread
use of SLAPP suits-especially by well-heeled public figures like James McGibney-to
squelch public criticism of them was so pervasive that the Texas Legislature adopted
TEX. Civ. PRAc . & REM. CODE 27 by a unanimous vote in both houses in 2011. To date,
26 other states and the District of Columbia have also adopted anti-SLAPP statutes.
McGib11ey v. Retzlaff
Defendant Neal Rauhauser's Motion to Dismiss Under the Citizen Participation Act
8.
In ruling on the motion, the Court "shall consider the pleadings
and supporting and opposing affidavits stating facts on which liability or

defense is based."
!d. 27.006(a). Upon a showing of good cause, the
Court may allow "specified and limited discovery relevant to the motion."
!d. 27.006(b ). Even then, the Court must hold the hearing on this motion
"not more than 120 days after service ofthe motion." !d. 27.004(c).
9.
If the Court grants Rauhauser' s motion to dismiss, the Court
must award Rauhauser court costs, attorney fees, and other expenses
incurred in defending against the action as justice and equity may require.
!d. 27.009(a)(l). One of the most powerful provisions of the Act-unique

in Texas law-is that, in addition to court costs, attorney' s fees, and other
expenses incurred in defending against the action, the Court's award of
sanctions to Rauhauser is not discretionary, but mandatory:
(a) If the court orders dismissal of a legal action under
this chapter, the court shall award to the moving party:
(2)
sanctions against the party who brought the legal
action as the court determines is sufficient to deter the party who
brought the action from bringing similar actions described in
this chapter.
!d. 27.009(a)(2) [emphasis added]; Farias v. Garza, 2014 Tex. App.

LEXIS 907 at *24-25 (Tex. App. -San Antonio January 29, 2014, n.p.h.);
see also 27.007(a).
10.
With only a single exception, the trial court "shall dismiss a
legal action against the moving party if the moving party shows by a
preponderance of the evidence that the legal action is based on, relates to, or
is in response to the party's exercise of ... the right of free speech." !d.
27.005(b)(l); Rehak Creative Servs., Inc. v. Witt, 404 S.W.3d 716, 723
(Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). The exception:
The court may not dismiss a legal action under this section if the
party bringing the legal action establishes by clear and specific
evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the
claim in question.
!d. at 723-24; 27.005(c); see also Farias v. Garza, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS
907 at *4-5 (Tex. App.-San Antonio January 29, 2014, n.p.h.) (reversing
trial court' s refusal to dismiss).
11 .
In ruling on this motion, the Court must construe the Act
liberally to fully effectuate its purpose and intent to encourage and safeguard
a defendant's constitutional rights. See id. 27.002, 27.011.
Defen dant Neal Rauhauser's Motion to Dismiss Under the Citizen Participation Act
B. Because Plaintiffs' Suit is in Response to Rauhauser's Exercise of the

Right of Free Speech, the Act Requires the Court to Dismiss
12.
Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed because they are based
on, related to, or in response to Rauhauser's exercise of his right of free

speech. '"Exercise of the right of free speech' means a communication
made in connection with a matter of public concern." !d. 27.001(3);
Rehak, 404 S.W.3d at 723. A "' [c]ommunication' includes the making or
submitting of a statement or document in any form or medium, including

oral, visual, written, audiovisual, or electronic." !d. 27.001(1); Rehak, 404
S.W.3d at 723 . Among other things, a "'[m]atter of public concern' includes
an issue related to .. . environmental, economic, or community well-being....
[or] ... a public figure .. .." !d. 27.001(7)(B), (D); Rehak, 404 S.W.3d at
723.
13.
As noted above, in support of their $1,000,000.00 suit for
defamation against Rauhauser, plaintiffs give just four specific statements

vaguely alleged to have been made by "Retzlaff and other Defendants:"
(1)
"I am simply amazed that this this BullyVille guy, James

McGibney, is still alive. If I was listed on his website, I would
put a bullet in his head. It's as simple as that. His home
address has been posted online. And he makes scheduled
public appearances. One of these days James is going to post
the name of the wrong guy and it will cost him, and his family,
their lives."
(2)
"I would like to bury a hatchet right in [McGibney's] f_cking

damn face."
(3)
" It will be really funny seeing someone post pies of your wife
Christina when she is shopping at Smith's with ur two kids."

(4)
"I have Twitter and a little bit of me dies everytime (sic) I log
in. I want to kill most people. Starting with Bullyville.
F_eking damn cesspool."
See Plaintiffs' Original Petition,
15. Plaintiffs plead that they are suing
Rauhauser "for the same, indivisible misconduct as Retzlaff s misconduct at

issue in this case." !d.,
16. Plaintiffs plead that they sue Rauhauser "for
this pattern of defamation, harassment, and stalking that includes defamation
per se and also repeatedly violates Texas Penal Codes (sic)."

14.
!d.,~
17.
Assuming that plaintiffs have the required "clear and specific
evidence" linking Rauhauser to the alleged statements-as opposed to

defendant Retzlaff-in construing the Act liberally, these allegations clearly
fall within the scope of the Act because they are based on, related to, or in
response to a communication made by Rauhauser on a matter of public
concern. A "matter of public concern" includes "an issue related to a public
figure." TEX. Crv. PRAC. & REM. CODE 27.001(7)(D). As shown by the
evidence appended to this motion, there is no doubt that McGibney is a
"public figure."
C. Is Plaintiff James McGibney a Public Figure?
15.
Yes.
"The question of public-figure status
IS
one of
constitutional law for courts to decide." WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978

S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998). The U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times
v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964), required public officials to prove
actual malice when suing for defamation involving public issues. Bentley v.
Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561, 590 (Tex. 2002). Later, the court extended the
New York Times actual-malice standard to public figures . Curtis Publ'g v.
Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 155 (1967). In the wake of Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct.
1207 (20 11 ), 5 it is doubtful that the public-figure status of the plaintiff
remains important for protection of the defendant speaker.
However,
whether McGibney is a public figure determines whether McGibney must

show "clear and specific evidence" of the element of actual malice to
survive Rauhauser's motion to dismiss. As shown below, he does.
16.
To determine whether McGibney is a public figure, the Court
should consider whether McGibney (i) actually sought publicity surrounding

the controversy; (ii) had access to the media; and (iii) voluntarily engaged in
activities that necessarily involved the risk of increased exposure and injury
to reputation. See WFAA-TV, Inc., 978 S.W.2d at 572-73 (plaintiff invited
Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207 (2011), is discussed extensively in the
public attention by becoming involved in Branch Davidian controversy);
Einhorn v. LaChance, 823 S.W.2d 405, 411-12 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st

Dist.] 1992, writ dism'd) (pilots engaged public's attention in attempt to
influence airborne emergency-medical-services industry).
17.
McGibney is the CEO of plaintiff ViaView, Inc. According to
a McGibney press release, McGibney is the founder of controversial

websites www.bullyville.com and www.cheatervi lle.com, among others.
Exhibit A. Visitors to the bullyville.com website will find, among other
things, a January 23, 2014, article posted about the indictment and arrest of
McGibney's personal enemy Hunter Moore. 6 Exhibit B. Visitors to the
cheaterville.com website are invited to create an account in order to post
pictures and other information about a paramour they suspect to have been
unfaithful to them in an intimate relationship. Exhibit C. Sworn testimony
offered on behalf of McGibney in a suit styled McGihney v. Moore7 attests
to McGibney's status as a public figure who regularly seeks publicity for
bullyville.com, cheaterville.com, and the issues of bullying and infidelity.
The relevant portion of that testimony includes the following:
following section, "How Hateful Can Comment on Public Figures Be Without Losing
Constitutional Protection?"
6
See Exhibit E, McGibney's Original Complaint in Cause No. A-12667156-C; McGibney v. Moore; in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada; a
defamation suit filed against Moore after Moore allegedly called McGibney a
"pedophile" and a "child abuser" and accused him of possessing "child pornography."
McGibiii!JI v. Retzlaff
Plaintiff James McGibney is the main operator and public face

of numerous online properties owned by Via View, Incorporated,
and its subsidiary company, Cheaterville, Incorporated.
McGibney regularly talks to the press about important issues
such as bullying and infidelity, and makes regular appearances
on behalf of the Internet social media services BullyVille, found
at bullyville.com, and CheaterVille, found at cheaterville.com.
These media appearances have included Univision, The Dr. Phil
Show, The Anderson Cooper Show, The Maury Povich Show,
Extra!, KSNV My News 3 (Las Vegas' NBC affiliate stations),
KXTL Fox 40 (Sacramento, California's FOX affiliate station),
The Buffington Post, the Las Vegas Sun, [and[ BetaBeat, among
others.
Exhibit D, affidavit of expert Colleen Connally-Ahem, Ph.D.,~ 7.
18.
In the case at bar, plaintiffs allege that defendant Retzlaff-
importantly, not Rauhauser-"is a blogger"8 who "terrorizes individuals

online" and has tried to "destroy" plaintiff ViaView, Inc., by "posting death
threats" and "engaging in other misconduct." 9 (How a defendant could
make a "death threat" against a corporation is never explained.) Plaintiffs
vaguely allege that the threats have been made "by Retzlaff and [nine] other
Defendants," who have "joined with Defendant Retzlaff in .. . cyberstalking, cyber-terrorism, defamation, and harassment." 10 Plaintiffs do not
allege a civil conspiracy or other theory of vicarious liability.
See supra, n. 4.
. The word "blog" is a shortened version of the term "web log," and refers
to a website on which authors offer free and continuously updated opinion, information,
or satirical comment concerning topics of interest to readers who usually share similar
political or philosophical viewpoints. A "blogger" is a person who creates a "blog."
9
See Plaintiffs Original Petition, ~ 15.
10
See Plaintiffs Original Petition,~~ 15-16.
8
10
D. Is Corporate Plaintiff Via View, Inc., a Public Figure?
19.
No-but it is not a proper defamation plaintiff, either. When a
corporation is defamed, the defamation is of the owner of the business and

not of the business itself. Newspapers, Inc. v. Matthews, 339 S.W.2d 890,
893 (Tex. 1960); Langston v. Eagle Publ'g, 719 S.W.2d 612, 618 (Tex.
App.-Waco 1986, writ refd n.r.e.).
A corporation also cannot suffer
"emotional distress." A proper plaintiff in such causes of action must be a

person seeking relief in his individual capacity. 11
E. How Hateful Can Comment About a Public Figure Be Without
Losing Constitutional Protection?
20.
There is now no visible limit.
The right to criticize public
figures harshly-even cruelly and unfairly-is one the framers of the First
Amendment used with relish. For example, in the presidential election of
1800, one political opponent wrote in the "blogs" of his day that incumbent
president John Adams was "old, querulous, bald, blind, crippled, [and]
toothless." 12 An operative hired by Thomas Jefferson, who was challenging
Adams for the presidency, added:
II
See, e.g., Haygood v. Clzandler, No. 12-02-00239-CV (Tex. App.-Tyler

2003, pet.denied) (memo. op.; October 31 , 2003) (intentional infliction of emotional
distress); Clzair King, Inc. v. GTE Mobilnet, 135 S.W.3d 365, 395 (Tex. App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 184 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. 2006) (invasion of
privacy).
12
McCullough, David, Joltn Adams, p. 500, quoting a letter written by
Abigail Adams to Mary Cranch.
11
John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character with

neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and
sens1"b"l"ty
1 1 of a woman. 13
In retort, the Adams camp called Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived
fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto

father." 14 Jefferson's and Adams' comments were both probably "designed
to inflict as much emotional distress and anguish" upon each other as
possible-just as plaintiffs in the case at bar specifically accuse Rauhauser
of doing. 15 This is not actionable. Here is why.
21.
"Public figures" are not limited to those who, like Jefferson and
Adams, hold public office. In 1983, self-described "smut peddler" Larry

Flynt, the publisher of Hustler Magazine and 28 other admittedly "tasteless"
publications, published a parody of a well-known print ad for Compari
Liqueur running nationally under the tag line, "My First Time." In the
parody, Jerry Falwell, a respected Baptist minister, was depicted as
confessing that his "first time" having sex was while he was drunk and with
his own mother in an outhouse. See Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485
U.S. 46, 48 (1988). Hustler presented a mock interview in which Falwell
13
Swint, Kerwin, "Founding Fathers' Dirty Campaign," CNN Living (Online),

August 22, 2008.
14
!d.
15
See Plaintiff's Original Petition, ~ 19.
12
says, "We were drunk off our God-fearing asses," and, "Mom looked better
than a Baptist whore with a $100 donation." 16
22.
Like McGibney in the case at bar, Falwell sued Hustler for
defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Hustler
Magazine, Inc. , 485 U.S. at 47-48. Falwell obtained a judgment in the trial
court that was upheld in the Fourth Circuit. However, in one of the most
dramatic First Amendment cases of the 20th Century, the U.S. Supreme
Court unanimously struck down the award and held that Hustler 's ad parody
was protected speech:
Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon
portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present
day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a
prominent role in public and political debate ... [and)
undoubtedly had an effect on the course and outcome of
contemporaneous debate. Lincoln's tall, gangling posture,
Teddy Roosevelt's glasses and teeth, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's
jutting jaw and cigarette holder have been memorialized by
political cartoons with an effect that could not have been
obtained by the photographer or the portrait artist. From the
viewpoint of history it is clear that our political discourse would
have been considerably poorer without them.
_
Hustler Magazine, Inc., 485 U.S. at 54-55. As the U.S. Supreme Court
added in a different case:
16
Hustler Magazine, November 1983, inside front cover.
13
[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a

sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's
opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for
according it constitutional protection.
. ~-
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, 745-46 (1978) [emphasis

added].
23.
In its first major free-speech decision of the 21 st century, the
U.S . Supreme Court extended the protection of free speech even further in
Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207 (2011). In Snyder, the court held for the
first time that the target of the offensive speech did not have to be a public
figure for the speech to be protected. !d. at 1228 (dissent by Alito, J.).
Snyder involved Rev. Fred Phelps, whose Westboro Baptist Church of

Topeka, Kansas, believes God hates and punishes the United States for
tolerating homosexuality, particularly in the military. !d. at 1213.
The
church frequently communicates its views by picketing, often at military

funerals. !d. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in Iraq in
the line of duty. !d. Snyder's funeral was at the Catholic church in the
Snyders' hometown of Westminster, Maryland. !d. At the funeral, Phelps
and his family members carried signs that read "Fag Troops," "God Hates
Fags" "Fags Doom Nations" "America is Doomed" "Pope in Hell" and
'
'
'
'
"Priests Rape Boys." !d. and at 1216.
14
24.
The Snyder court vacated the damages award to the dead
soldier's father for intentional infliction of emotional distress, holding that

Phelps' speech was protected by the First Amendment-even though the
Snyders were not public figures and had never sought publicity. ld. The
Snyder court found Phelps' speech to be on "matters of public concern"-
speech that "occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment
values, and is entitled to special protection." ld. at 1215 [citation omitted].
The court concluded:
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. That choice requires that we
shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
ld. at 1223. It is impossible to conclude that a court constrained by Snyder's
precepts could find that Rauhauser's speech is anything other than

constitutionally protected comment on McGibney's controversial websites.
15
F. Are Plaintiffs' Nondefamation Tort Claims Outside the Ambit of the

Citizen Participation Act's Requirement of Dismissal?
25.
No. As noted above, in addition to defamation, plaintiffs allege
harassment, stalking, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious

interference with business relations, business disparagement, and "gross
negligence per se in violation of TEX. PEN. CODE 22.07, 17 42.07, and
42.072" arising from alleged Internet postings that plaintiffs characterize as
"unlawful verbal acts." 18 Occasionally, respondents to motions to dismiss
under the Act argue that such non-defamation allegations are outside the
Act's requirement that a court dismiss them. Texas courts reject such a
tactic, referring to a plaintiffs kitchen-sink pleading of all possible wrongs
as "tag-along torts," and pointing out that the Act "broadly encompasses a
'cause of action; that 'relates to' 19 the movant's 'exercise of ... the right of
17
TEX. PENAL CoDE 22.07 is an assaultive offense captioned "Terroristic

Threat" of which intent by the actor to "place the public or a substantial group of the
public in fear of serious bodily injury," inter alia, is a required element. See, e.g., TEX.
PENAL CODE 22.07(a)(5). TEX. PENAL CODE 42.07, captioned "Harrassment," also
requires intent. See TEX. PENAL CODE 22.07(a). There is no provision for a private
cause of action under these statutes. Furthermore, it is unclear how a person could
"negligently" violate a penal statute of which intent is a required element.
18
See Plaintiffs' Original Petition, ~ 17, for plaintiffs' allegations of
"defamation," "defamation per se," "harassment," and "stalking." See ~ 19 for the
allegation of "intentional infliction of emotional distress." See~ 20 for the allegations of
"tortious interference with business relationships" and "business disparagement." See ~
21 for the allegation of "gross negligence per se in violation of TEX. PEN. CODE 22.07,
42.07, and 42.072." See~ 22 for the allegation of"unlawful verbal acts."
19
" In ordinary use, 'relates to ' means to have a connection with, to refer to,
or to concern." Tex. Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Abbott, 310 S.W.3d 670, 674-75 (Tex.
App.-Austin 2010, no pet.).
16
free speech.' See Rehak, 404 S.W.3d at 733, citing TEx. Crv. PRAC. & REM.
CODE ANN. 27.001(6), 27.005(b)(l).
The same protections which the First Amendment affords
defendants from libel claims also protect them from non-libel
claims based on the same publication.
Rehak, 404 S.W.3d at 733, quoting Provencio v. Paradigm Media, Inc., 44

S.W.3d 677, 682-83 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2001, no pet.). The scope of free
speech protection "do[es] not depen<) on the legal theory asserted by an
inventive plaintiff." Wavell v. Caller-Times Pub. Co., 809 S.W.2d 633 , 635
(Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied), abrogated on other grounds
by Cain v. Hearst Corp., 878 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. 1994); see also MKC
Energy Invs. v. Sheldon, 182 S.W.3d 372, 378 (Tex. App. -Beaumont
2005, no pet.); KTRK Television v. Felder, 950 S.W.2d 100, 107-08 (Tex.
App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.).
26.
Plaintiffs cannot avoid the Act's requirement that the Court
dismiss their unsupported claims by simply overpleading their case.
17
G. What is Plaintiffs' Burden in Responding to Rauhauser's

Motion to Dismiss?
27.
Because Rauhauser establishes by a preponderance of the
evidence that plaintiffs' petition is based on, related to, or in response to the
exercise of constitutionally protected rights under the Act, the burden shifts
to plaintiffs-each of them- to establish by clear and specific evidence a
prima facie case for each essential element of each of their approximately
eight causes of action, which they denominate as follows:
(i)
defamation;
(ii)
defamation per se;
(iii)
harassment;
(iv)
stalking;
(v)
intentional infliction of emotional distress;
(vi)
tortious interference with business relations;
(vii) business disparagement; and

(viii) gross negligence per se.
Needless to say, such evidence would have to begin with "clear and specific
evidence" that Rauhauser was the alleged tortfeasor-as opposed to the
vague allegation of plaintiffs' pleading that what plaintiffs call "indivisible"
torts were committed by "Retzlaff and other Defendants."
18
Ill. CONCLUSION
28.
Because Rauhauser proves by a preponderance of the evidence
that plaintiffs' suit impinges on his exercise of the right of free speech, the
Court must dismiss the suit unless each plaintiff produces "clear and specific
evidence" establishing a prima facie case for each element of each of
plaintiffs' eight causes of action.
IV. PRAYER
29.
For these reasons, Rauhauser asks the Court to set his motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for a hearing, and, after the hearing, grant
Rauhauser's motion; dismiss plaintiffs' suit with prejudice; award
Rauhauser his court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and other expenses
incurred in defending against plaintiffs' legal action as justice and equity
may require; and impose sanctions that the Court determines are sufficient to
deter plaintiffs from bringing similar actions in the future.
19
HANSZEN-c~~ l AP0 RTE

By:
Is/ Jeffrey L. Dorrell
Jeffrey L. Dorrell
jdorrell@hanszenlaporte.com
Philip A. Meyer
pmeyer@hanszenlaporte.com
11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 850
Telephone: 713-522-9444
FAX: 713-524-2580
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NEAL RAUHAUSER
20
I hereby certify that on - ----=-3-=-2=0__, 2014, a true and correct copy of the
_x_
Hand delivery
Certified mail
Telephonic document transfer
E-service in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P. 21a(a)(l)
in accordance with TEx. R. Crv. P. 21a to the following counsel of record:

Mr. John S. Morgan
jmorgan@jsmorganlaw .com
Morgan Law Firm
Telephone: 409-239-5984
FAX: 409-835-2700
JEFFREY L. DORRELL
21
- -- - - -- - -- - -- - -
COLLEEN CONNOLLY-AHERN, PH.D.

CURRICULUM VITAE
328 DOUGLAS DRIVE, STATE Cor_LEGE, J>A 16803
PHONE 814-865-3073 E - MAIL CONNOLLYAHERN@PSU.EOU
1\CADEMJC POSITIONS
2010- Present The Pennsylvania State University
State. College, PA
Assoriale Professor of Comn111nicotion, Adlterlising and P11blic Relations

Member, Latin A111erican St11diu Farui!J, Pmn Slate Univmiry
Co11rse Coordinator, COi\!f.M 420, Research Methods
2004 - 2010
The Pennsylvania State University
State College, PA
Assistant Profmor ofCOIIIIIIIIIIicalion, Advertising n11d Public Relations
Counes Tanght:
Research Methods in Advertising and Public Relations
(CO~L\1
420)
J\d,crt:ising Planning (COi\:111 422)

Advertising Campaigns (COI\fM 424)
Strategic Communication and Society (COMM 522)
Comcot Analysis Med10dology (CO.MI\1 597)
ImcrnatiooaJ and lntercultuml Str.ttegic Communications (COMM 426
and CO.MM 597)
Qualitative Research Med10ds (COMM 511)
.May 2012
Shanghai International Studies University Shanghai, China
Visiti11g Professor of Conmnmirofion

Courses To11ght:
Research Methods io Advertising and Public Relations
International and Iotercultur-.tl Strategic Communications
EDUCATION
-- - ---- -------- - ----- -- - ---------- - - - ---- - ---------- -..2002 - 2004
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
Dodor of Philosophy
Alumni Fellow
Dissertation: Media, excuses and culture: A cross-culrural impression
management experiment
Chair: Lynda Lee Kaid, Ph.D.
1999-2002
Gaine~-ville,
FL
Master ofArts in Mass Co!lllnii!Jicalion, Jl~"ith Distinction

Marion Bf'(cbntr Fmdom ojinformaliolr FeUow
Thesis: Hyperlink proximity: An assessment of pharmaceutical Web site
advertising in the absence of FDA regulation
Chair: Sandra F. Chance, J.D.
t 981 - t 987
Georgetown University
Washington, DC
Bachelor ofArts in History

GRADUATE TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Gainesville, FL
2002 - 2004
lotto to Public Relations (PUR 3000)
Intra to Public Relations Teaching Assist..'\nt (PUR 3000)
Advertising Campaigns (ADV 4800)
Advertising Sales (ADV 3502)
lmcrnational Advertising (ADV 4400)
RELEVANT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1994-2004
1\bber Lane Marketing
Gainesville, FL
Presidmt
Owned and operated a marketing communications firm serving clients
from the banking, publishing and education business areas.
1992- 1994
USA Tot0
Pro1notion M tmnger
New York City, NY
Supervised a staff of three in the production of promotion marerials and

sales presentations for the advertising sales staff of a national newspaper.
Fulfilled advertorial projects, supervised designers and copywriters.
Completed Gannett's Management Development Program.
1990 - 1992
Marine Log Magazine
Managing Editor
New York City, NY
Produced a monthly trade magazine for shipping and cruising industry.

Wrote monthly fearure articles. Copy edited all staff and freelance
articles. Created monthly layout budget
Super\'ised transfer of mag.WOe from paste-up to desktop publishing.
PUBLISHED MANUSCRIPTS
--Connolly-Ahern, C., Schejter, A., & Obar,J.A. (2012). The Poor .Man's
Lamb revisited: Assessing rhe state of LPFM at its 1Oth anniversary. The
Colnlhlllll"calioll Rel'ieu,, 15, 21-44.
- --------------
-----------------------------
Grantham, S., Ahern, L & Connolly-Ahern, C. (2011). Ampli}ing risk to

activate protection motivation: Merck's G-.~.rdasil c:tmpaign. Cotnmnniralion
B.marrh &ports, 28(4), 318-326.
Connolly-Ahern, C., Cas tells i Talens, A (2010). 1be role of indigenous
peoples in Guatemalan political advertisements: An ethnographic content
analysis. CommmiraJion, 01lture and Critique, 3(3), 310-333.
Yu, N., Ahern, L.A., Connolly-Ahern, C., & Shen, F. (201 0).
Communicating the risks of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: Effects of
message framing and exemplification. 1-Jea/Jb Co1111nrmitati011, 25(8), 692-
699.
Connolly-Ahern, C., Grantham, S., & Cabrera-Baukus, !VL (2010). The
effects of attribution of VNRs and risk on news viewers' assessments of
credibility. Jonmal oJPnblic Re/4Jions &search, 22(1), 49-64.
Connolly-Ahern, C., Ahem, L., & Boruee, D.S. (2009). The effectiveness
of stratified constructed week sampling for content analysis of electronic
archives: AP Newswire, Business Wire and PR Newswirc. ]o11malirm &
Mau Comtmmir(l/ioiT Q11arter!;~ 86(4), 862-883.
Connolly-Ahern, C. & Broadway, S.C. (2008). "To booze or not to booze?"
Newspaper coverage of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. Srie11ce
Comtnntri&atioiT, 29(3), 362-385.

Connolly-Ahern, C., & Broadway, S.C. (2007). The importance of
appearing competent: An analrsis of corporate impression management
strategies on the World Wide Web. P11blic "&lations Re1Jiew, 33(3), 343-345.
Connolly-Ahern, C., & Golan, G . (2007). Press frct:dom and religion:
Measuring an association between press freedom and religious
composition. jonmal oJMedia mrd Religion, 6(1), 63-76.
Dimitrova, D., & Connolly-Aher.o, C. (2007). A t:lle of two wars: Framing
analysis of online news sites in coaJitjon countries and the Arab world
during the Iraq war. I'be 1-lou'Ord j o11rnal of Communications, 18(2), 153-168.
Molleda, J.C., Conoolly-Aher.o, C., & Quinn, C. (2005). Cross-national
conflict shifting: E::-..-panding a theory of global public relations management
through quantitative content analysis. jfJumali.rm Studies, 6(1 ), 87-1 02.
Hertero,J.C., & Connolly-Al1ern, C. (2004). Origen y cvoluci6o de Ia
propaganda politica co Ia Espana democcirica (1975-2000): An:ilisis de las
tecnicas y de los meosajes en las elecciones generales del ailo 2000. Doxa
Conmnir.acitfn, 2, 151-172.
Dimitrova, D ., Connolly-Ahern, C., Williams, A.P., Kaid, LL, & Reid, A.
(2003). Hyperlinking as gatekccpmg: Online newspaper coverage of the
execution of an American terrorist. Joumalism Studiu, 4(3), 401-414.
Connolly-Ahern, C., & Kaid, LL (2002). Corporate advertising as political

advertising: Patriotic messages in d1e aftermath of 9-11. Jon mal oJPo/itiral
Marketing, 1(4), 95-99.
LAW REVIEW ARTICLES
--------------- ------
Chance, S.F., & Connolly-Ahern, C. (2001). A vote of confidence? Florida's

public records Jaw and the 2000 presidential election recounts: Could it
happen in any other state? ]o11ma/ oflAw and Public PolifJ, 13(1), 135-152.
l~VITED
BOOK CHAPTERS
Connolly-Ahern, C. & Ahem, L (In press). Behind dlc green curtain:

Constructing the green consumer with contemporary environmental
advertising. In Matthew P. McAllister & Emily Wc:st (Eds.), Th~ Rotttkdg~
Compatzion to Adverthiltg and Pmnotional Clllfut?. New York: Routledge.
Connolly-Ahern, C., & Herrero,J.C. (2008). Politics and impression
management in Spanish advertising. In LL Kaid (Ed.), The EU Expansion:
Com11111tlicali11g Shared Sotmign!J in the Parliamentary Elections. New York: Peter
Lang Publishers.
Connolly-Ahern, C., & Herrero, J.C. (2006). Political advertising in Spain
and Portugal"In C. Holtz-Bacha & Ll.. Kaid (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Po/iJical Atl~'trli.Ii!Jg. New York: Sage, pp. 97-108.
ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRIES
Connolly-Ahern, C. (2010). "Alcohol, Risk Communication For." In The

En9r/Qpedin ofSci~nce ,md Technology Connmmiration, cditcd by Susanna Hornig
Priest. New York: Sage.
Connolly-Ahern, C. (2008). "Federal Trade Commission." T.n The
Enrydopetlia ofPo/ilical Commrmicalion, Volume 2, edited by Lynda Lee Kaid
and Cristina Holtz-Bacha. New York: Sage.
Connolly-Ahern, C. (2008). "Impression Management." In T!Je Enqckpedia
oJPo!iliraiCommuniazlion, Volume 2, edited by Lynda Lee Kaid and Cristina
Holtz-Bacha. New York: Sage.
Connolly-Ahern, C. (2008). "Strategic Communication." In The Emyd~dia
of Political ComnnmicaJio11, VoJume 2, eclited by Lynda Lee Kaid and Cristina
Holtz-Bacha. New York: Sage.
REPRINTS
----------
Dimitrova. D., Connolly-Ahern, C., \\'illiams, A.P., Kaid, LL, & Reid, A.
(2008). Hyperlinkiog as gatekecping: Online newspaper coverage of the

execution of an American terrorist. In R. Franzosi (Ed.), Sage Benclunarks
in Social Science Research .Methods' Conlmt Anafym . New York: Sage.

HONORS AND AWARDS
- - - - -- ------------- ---- - --- ---------------------2008
Top Three Faculty Paper

Public Relations Division, AEJMC
2007
Top Two Faculty Paper

Science Communication I merest Group , AEJMC
2005
Top Paper Session

Public Relations Division, ICA
2004
Top Three Student Paper

Public Relations Dhi sion, AEJ.MC
2004
Outstanding Graduate 'Student Teacher

College ofJournalism and Mass Communication
2003
Top Paper
PRSA Educators Academy, PRSA
2003
Top Student Paper

Law Division, AEJMC
2003
ICA Graduate Teaching Award

Advertising-University of A orida
2002
Top Four Faculty/Student Paper

Public Relations Division, AEJMC
2001
Elected to Phi Kappa Phi

National Ho nor Society
FUNDED RE SEA RCH
_ ___
..,_-----~4--~----------~--------------------------- -------- .......---
Completed
"A Strategy, Acquisition, and Rc\rcnue Model of Evangelical Radio
Networks" (2008-2009)
Co-Principal Investigator
Social Science Research Council
S7,500
Feral Alcoho l Spectrum Disorder Awareness Campaign
Pennsylvania Dc:parrmc:nt of Health
S100,000 (2006-2007); SlOO,OOO (2007-2008)

5
"Use of political communications in Guatemalan presidential

elections"
Principal Investigator
Summer Research Grant 2007, College of Communicarions,
Pennsylvania State University
$3,500
"The Effect of Video News Release Attribution on Credibility and
Ris k Assessmenr"
Arthur W. Page Foundation, P~ Legacy Scholar 2006/2007
$3,000
REFEREED CONFERENCE PAPERS
------------------- - - -------------------------Worawongs, W., & Connollr-Ahern, C. (August, 2011). Private labeling,

crisis communication and media influence: The Menu Food pet food recall
Presented to the Public Relations Division, AEJMC, St. Louis, MO.
Grantl1am, S., Connolly-Ahern, C., & Ahern, Li\. (December, 2009). One
Less: Television advertising and awareness of HPV risk among young
women. Presented to the Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting,
Baltimore, MD.
Connolly-Ahern, C., Schejter, A., Obar,J., & Martincz-Carrillo, N.J.
(September, 2009). A slice of the pie: Examining the state of the Low
Power FM !Udio Service in 2009. Presented to the Research Conference on
Communication, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC), Arlington, VA.
Connolly-Ahern, C., & Castells i Talens, A. Qune, 2009). The role of
indigenous people in Guatemalan political advertisements: An ed1nographic
content analysis. Presented to the Mass Media and Popular Culture Track,
Latin American Studies Association, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Connolly-Ahern, C., Grantham, S., & Cabrcra-Baukus, M. (August. 2008).
The effects of attribution of VNRs and risk on news vi<..'Wers' assessments
of credibilit)'. Presented to the Puhlic Relations Di\'ision, AEJMC, Chicago,
IL.
Yu, N., Ahem, L.A., Connolly-Ahern, C., & Shen, F. (August, 2008).
Communicating the risks of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: Effects of
message framing and exemplification. Presented ro the Science
Communication Interest Group, AEJ.MC, Chicago, IL
Connolly-Ahern, C. (August, 200i). Agenda-tapping: Conceptualizing the
rcl:~.tionship between news coverage, fund raising and the First
Amendment. Presented to the Public Relations Dh-ision, AEJMC,
Washington, DC.
Connoll)'-Ahem, C., & Broadway, S.C. (August, 2007). "To booze or not
to booze?" Newspaper coverage of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
Presented to the Science Communication Interest Group, AEJMC,
Wa.~hington, DC.
Grantham, S., Connolly-Ahern, C. & Cabrcra-Baukus, M. (December,
2006). The effects of attributions ofVNRs on new viewers' assessments of
credibility and risk. Society for Risk An!ilysis Annual Meeting. Baltimore,
MD.
Connolly-Ahern, C. (Augusr, 2006). Excuse us, please: Examining the effect
of e..xcuses on corporate cn:dibility after an advcrse incidenL Presented tO
the Public Relations Division, AEJMC, Sao Francisco, CA.
Broadway, S.C., & Connolly-Ahern, C. (Augusr, 2005). A prescription for
self-presentation: An analysis of impression management strategies on
health Web sites. Presenred to the Science Communication !merest Group,
AEJMC, Sao Antonio, TX
Dimitrova, D., & Connolly-Ahero, C. (August, 2005). A ta.le of two wars:
Framing analysis of onJine news sites in coalition countries and the Arab
wocld during the Iraq war. Presented ro rhe Torernational Communication
Division, AEJMC, San Antonio, TX.
Connolly-Ahern, C. (Ma}', 2005). Assessing the relative credibiliry of
excuses offered in editorial content and advertising in two cultures. Paper
presented to the Public Relations Division, ICA, New York City, NY.
Connolly-Ahern, C., & Broadway, S.C. Quly, 2004). The importance of
appearing competent: An analysis of corporate impression management
strategies on the Wocld Wide Web. Presented to the Public Relations
Division, AEJMC, Torooro, ON, Canada.
Connolly-Ahern, C. (November:, 2003). Accounting through advertising: A
proposal for applying the Triangle Model of Rc:sponsibility to coq>orate
advocacy advertising. Presented to the Student Division, NCA, l'vfiami, FL
MoUeda,J.C., Connolly-Ahern, C., & Quinn, C. (October, 2003). Crossnational conflict shifting: Expanding a theory of global public relations
management through quantitative: content analysis. Presented to the PRSA
Educators Academy, Nc:w Orleans, LA.
Herrero,J.C., & Conoolly-Ahem, C. (September, 2003). Lear.oing from
mistakes? A comparison of the techniques and messages in tbe 1996 and
2000 Spanish national elections. Presented to the Sixth Annual Political
Marketing Confercoce, London, England.
Connolly-Ahern, C. Quly, 2003). Hyperlink proximity: An

opcrationalizlltion of FDA-mandated fair balance on pharmaceutical Web
sites. Presented to the Law Division, AEJMC, Kansas City, MO.
Golan, G., & Connolly-Ahern, C. Quly, 2003). Press freedom and religion:
Measuring an association between press freedom and religious compositioo.
Presented to the Religion and Media Interest Group, AEJMC, Kansas City,
.MO.
Dimitrova, D.V., Connolly-Ahern, C., Reid, A., Williams, A. P., & Kaid,
LL (August, 2002). Hyperliuking as gatekecping: Online newspaper
coverage of d1e execution of an American terrorist. Presented to the
Newspaper Division, AEJMC, Miami Beach, FL
Molleda,J.C., & Connolly-Ahern, C. (August, 2002). Cross-national conflict
shifting: A conceptualization and expansion in an international public
relations context. Presented to the Public Relations Division, AEJMC,
Miami Beach, FL
Connolly-Ahern, C. (March, 2001 ). Advertising and the challenge to
national sovereignty: International implications of direct-to-consumer dmg
advertising on the Internet. Presented to the Law Division, AEJMC
Southeast Regional Colloquium, Columbia, SC.
_______
__________ ___________________...........
INVITED P1\NEL_,PRESENTATJONS
............................................
______,
,.........
Connolly-Ahern, C. (August, 2009). Characterizations of family in

information subsidies during the 2008 eJection: A qualitative content
analysis. Presented to a Mini-Plenary of the Mass Communication and
Society, Communication Technology, Cultural and Critical Studies
Divisions and the Commission on the Status of Women, AEJMC, Boston,
MA.
CoonoUy-Ahem, C. & Martioez-Carillo, N.l. (August, 2009). Changing
gears: Framing Cristina Fern:lndez de Kirchner's presidential bid. Presented
to the Commission oo the Status of Women and the International
Communication Division, AEJMC, Boston, :M.A.
Connolly-Ahern, C. (September, 2006). News coverage in the 2003 Gulf
War: A view from Latin America. Presented to Global Fusion, Chicago, n_
Connolly-Ahern, C., & Kaid, LL (November, 2003). Branding a crisis:
Corpomte advertising as political advertising afrcr 9-1 1. Presented to the
Political Communication Division, NCA, Miami, FL.
Conooll}'-Ahero, C., Williams, A.P., Flowers, K , Flo}'d. S., Khaog, H., &
Mills, L Guly, 2002). Look who's talking: The role of media narcissism in
the news coverage of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Presented to
the Political Communication Divisio n, I CA., Seoul, South Korea.
2010-2012
Member, Department Promotion and Tenure Committee

College of Communications, Penn State University
2007-2009
Member, Graduate Committee

College of Communications, Peon Stare University
2005-2007
Member, Schol:uship Committee

2004- 2007
Member, Faculty Search Committees:

Advertising; Public Relations; Professional in Advertising
2005-2006
Member, SRTE Review Committee

2005-2006
Member, Faculty Search Committees:

Advertising; Public Rdatjoos; Professional in Advertising
College of Communications, Penn State U nivc:rsity
2004-2005
Member, Advertising/ Public Relations Graduate

Curriculum Committee
2003-2004
Graduate Committee, University of Florida College of

J o urnalism and Mass Communication
2001 - 2002
Research Committee, University of Florida College of

Journalism and Mass Communication
10
4.
With the apt tagline "Pure Evil," IAU quickly became a controversial repository
for salacious images. Spurned ex-lovers who had compromising photos of their former partners,
and hackers who unlawfully accessed strangers' e-mail and cellular phone accounts to obtain
compromising images, became a significant source of the !AU's content.
5.
These individuals forwarded their victim's nude images to Moore via e-mail.
Moore would then organize the images, accompanied with a screen capture of the individual's
Facebook or Twitter account to corroborate his or her identity, and publish the images on IAU.
This business model made IAU a source of national outrage.
6.
In April2012, McGibney sought to put an end to Moore's unlawful and unethical
10
conduct. He considered a number of ways to do so, but determined that simply purchasing the
11
<isanyoneup.com> domain name from Moore, so that he could immediately shutter the site,
12
would be the most expeditious way to put an end to Moore's continued attacks on unwitting
13
men, women, boys, and girls. McGibney's purchase was solely for the <isanyoneup.com>
14
domain name and did not include any of the underlying content found on IAU.
15
7.
On April19, 2012, following McGibney's purchase of the domain
16
name,<isanyoneup.com> re-directed visitors to BullyVille, one ofMcGibney's Internet
17
properties, where Moore wrote a letter explaining the sale of the <isanyoneup.com> domain
18
name. IAU was no more.
19
20
21
8.
Moore himself issued public statements that he was "turning over a new leaf' and
putting this kind of conduct behind him.

9.
Despite these events, Moore has used the interactive microblogging platform,
22
Twitter, to engage in new, focused attacks on McGibney and his family. Specifically, without
23
basis or explanation, Moore accused McGibney of a) possessing child pornography, b) failing to
24
report such content to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and FBI, c)
25
sexually abusing underprivileged children, and d) being a pedophile. Simultaneously, Moore
26
publicly threatened to rape McGibney's wife.
27
28
-2 -
10.
McGibney, confronted with this series of events and an adversary who will say
literally anything to smear his reputation and business, is left with no viable recourse to clear his
name other than a judicial decree that Moore's statements are defamatory.
II. Jurisdiction and Venue

11.
Plaintiffhas alleged damages in excess of$10,000 and resides within Clark
County, Nevada.
12.
Moore is a resident of California, but has been in regular contact with McGibney
and has published defamatory statements about McGibney while knowing McGibney resided in
Clark County.
13.
10
11
As seen in Exhibits A and B, Moore knew his statements at issue in this suit were
directed at McGibney and into Clark County.

14.
12
Moore has significant and extensive business contacts within Clark County,
13
including the use of a Las Vegas-based attorney for legal representation in connection with
14
IAU, 1 and his numerous compensated appearances in promotion ofiAU between January and
15
July 2012 at Las Vegas venues including Mandalay Bay and the Harmon Theater?
16
17
1
19
Kashmir Hill, Revenge Porn With a Facebook Twist, Forbes (July 6, 2011),
http://www. forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/20 11/07/06/revenge-porn-with-a-facebook-twist/ (last
accessed Aug. 17, 2012).
20
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Is Anyone Up Party at Mandalay Bay (NSFW), LA Weekly (2012),

http://www.laweekly.com/slideshow/is-anyone-up-party-at-mandalay-bay-nsfw-35986339/#l
(last accessed Aug. 18, 2012) (photographs of Moore in Las Vegas during January 2012);
Andrea Domanick, Despicable Me: Q&A With Is Anyone Up? 'sHunter Moore, Las Vegas Sun
(Jan. 20, 20 12), http://www .lasvegassun.com/news/20 12/jan/20/is-anyone-up-hunter-moore/
(last accessed Aug. 18, 2012); Hunter Moore, !AU Forever Naked Tour+ Filming for Hunter
Moore's Show, Is-Anyone-Up (20 12), http:/lis-anyone-up.tumblr.com/post/23976438228/iauforever-naked-tour-filming-for-hunter-moores (last accessed Aug. 18, 2012) (listing July 5, 2012
tour date in Las Vegas, Nevada); Additionally, Moore's April19, 2012 farewell letter posted to
BullyVille acknowledged that he had thrown and attended parties promoting IAU in Las Vegas,
Nevada. Camille Dodero, Bullyville Has Taken Over Hunter Moore's IsAnyoneUp? (Updated),
Village Voice Blog (Apr. 19, 2012),
http://blogs. villagevoice.com/runninscared/20 12/04/bullyville_ isanyoneup.php (last accessed
Aug. 18, 2012).
- 3-
15.
Based on Moore's activities and underlying contacts with Clark County, this
Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him is reasonable and appropriate.
III. Parties
3
A. The Plaintiff
16.
McGibney is a resident of Clark County, Nevada and President ofViaView,
Incorporated. ViaView owns and operates a number of popular and highly trafficked Internet
properties, including BullyVille, found at <bullyville.com>, CheaterVille, found at
<cheaterville.com>, and SlingerVille.com, found at <slingerville.com>, among others.
17.
On or about April 17, 2012, at McGibney's direction, ViaView, Inc., purchased
10
the domain name <isanyoneup.com> from Hunter Moore. McGibney and ViaView, Inc. did not
11
purchase, license, access, or in any way obtain any content, images, user submissions or other
12
data comprising the IAU website.
13
18.
Similarly, neither McGibney nor ViaView, Inc. ever had access to, control over,
14
possession of, or any level of direct interaction with the materials on IAU. All that McGibney
15
and ViaView obtained from Moore was the domain name <isanyoneup.com>, which was
16
redirected to BullyVille on April19, 2012.
17
B. The Defendant
18
19
20
19.
Moore is a resident of Sacramento, California and former operator ofiAU.
Recently, he has taken steps to resurrect IAU, branding it as "IAU2."

20.
Moore is active on many online social media services, including Facebook,
21
Tumblr and Twitter. On Twitter, Moore manages the accounts "@huntermoore," found at
22
<twitter.corn/huntermoore>, and "@is_anyone_up," found at <twitter.corn/is_anyone_up>.
23
21.
In an April2012, the New York City-based Village Voice profiled Moore, where
24
he described IAU and his personal significance on the Internet: "I'm actually fucking people
25
over. It's real people who you can actually basically reach, and be in contact with."
26
27
22.
Moore actively promoted IAU and continues to promote its return, but denies all
responsibility for the site's consequences - stating that "I don't_ see how I'm supposed to be
28
-4-
sorry." Moore also brags of his cavalier response to demand letters sent by IAU victims'
attorneys, claiming "all I reply back with is 'LOL,' and then I never hear back from them again."
23.
Moore is also comfortable with !AU's significant popularity among minors. As
Moore told the Village Voice: "To be perfectly honest, I think it's fucking awesome that people
want to be on my site when they tum 18."
IV. Factual AUegations Common to All Claims
A. The History of Moore and IAU

24.
In 2011, Moore created IAU as a repository for nude images that individuals sent
to him in order to embarrass unwitting victims.

25.
10
People would e-mail Moore photos of nude and semi-nude men and women that
11
they either took themselves or, more commonly, had privately obtained from the photographed
12
subject during the course of a relationship or extracted from a victim's hacked e-mail or cell
13
phone account.
26.
14
Images in these latter categories- photos sent to ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends,
15
or stolen through hacking - were sent to Moore without the permission of the depicted
16
individuals. In tum, Moore published and distributed these images on IAU without permission
17
of the individuals depicted in those photographs and without obtaining any records as required
18
by 18 U.S.C. 2257.
27.
19
While operating IAU, Moore mocked and ignored legal demands made by the
20
site's victims. As the site grew, so too did the legal threats it faced; in late 2011, Facebook, Inc.
21
threatened to sue Moore and IAU for using screenshots ofFacebook profiles to provide
22
personally identifying information for the men and women whose nude photos appeared on
23
IAU. 3
28.
24
Moore received many user submissions for the website that contained or depicted
25
illegal child pornography.
26
27
Kashmir Hill, Face book Goes After IsAnyoneUp, A Porn Site That Features Its Users ' Profiles,
Forbes (Dec. 9, 2011), http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhi1V2011/12/09/facebook-goes-afterpom-site-that-features-its-users-profiles/ (last accessed Aug. 18, 2012).
28
- 5-
In May 2012, Moore confirmed to the Village Voice that the FBI was
29.
investigating him in connection with IAU.

In confirming that the FBI's investigation was underway, Moore demanded that
30.
3
4
Village Voice reporter Camille Dodero identify how she learned of the probe. Specifically,
Moore stated:
I will literally fucking buy a first-class fucking plane ticket right now, eat an
4
amazing meal, buy a gun in New York, and fucking kill whoever said that.
B. Moore Sells The <IsAnyoneUp.com> Domain Name to McGibney
9
10
31.
properties, McGibney closely monitored Moore's behavior throughout 2011 and 2012.
11
12
13
14
15
32.
18
19
for the victims of his involuntary pornography campaign. McGibney believed that he could
convince Moore to cease, where others had failed, by educating him and appealing to his better
nature.
33.
Simultaneously, McGibney seriously feared that Moore's behavior would lead to
harmful legal precedent that would weaken, if not destroy entirely, the precious legal immunities
that websites driven by user-generated content such as Twitter, CheaterVille, and Facebook
depend upon for their continued existence. 5
20
21
During this time, McGibney communicated with Moore, and tried to lead him to
see the error of his ways. McGibney fundamentally disagreed with Moore and !AU's disregard
16
17
As the head officer ofViaView, Inc., which depends on its many Internet
34.
In April2012, McGibney directed ViaView, Inc., to buy the <isanyoneup.com>
domain name from Moore, resulting in !AU's shuttering.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Camille Dodero, "Gary Jones" Wants Your Nudes: Is One Hacker Behind Man ofthe
"Revenge_Porn" Photos That Were Posted on Hunter Moore's Is Anyone Up?, Village Voice
(May 16, 2012), http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-05-16/news/hacker-is-anyone-up-huntermoore-fbi/4/ (last accessed Aug. 18, 2012) (emphasis added).
5
See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. 512 (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act); 42 U.S.C. 230 (Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act).
-6-
35.
Moore agreed to the deal. On April19, 2012, all traffic to the domain name
<isanyoneup.com> was redirected to the BullyVille website, a ViaView website dedicated to
helping the victims of bullying; the content that made up the IAU website was no longer
available online.
C. Moore Attacks McGibney and His Family
36.
Once IAU was no longer active, Moore's "15 minutes of fame" seemed to be at
an end. Moore did not react well to his newfound irrelevancy, and found it impossible to
reinvent himself in order to create any semblance of sustainable celebrity.
9
10
11
37.
Only four months after McGibney allowed Moore to retire his Internet notoriety
with grace, Moore abruptly turned on McGibney.

38.
On August 18, 2012, Moore used his personal Twitter account, @huntermoore, to
12
baselessly accuse McGibney- identifying him through BullyVille's Twitter account,
13
@bullyville- of child molestation and possession of child pornography (Exhibit A at 1-2).
14
39.
Moore attempted to draw the attention of Internet gossip publication Gawker to
15
his allegations by adding its Twitter account, @gawker, to his first tweet attacking McGibney:
16
"hey @gawker you write about me every chance you get let me tell you what james [McGibney]
17
from @bullyville does to underage kids and their nudes." (Exhibit A at 1)
18
40.
Moore then continued with two successive Twitter posts, or "tweets," about
19
McGibney, stating: "hey @bullyville remember when you cried on the phone and were worried
20
about getting kicked off your board because you kept all the underage" and continuing with
21
"nudes form [sic] iau on your hard drive and when the fbi investigated me you thought they'd
22
take you down for child porn." (Exhibit A at 1)
23
41.
Continuing his onslaught, Moore commanded McGibney, "aye james @bullyville
24
get some little kids dick out of your mouth and let me fuck your wife," and then inquired "how
25
are you going to help stop bullying when you're a pedophile and go to china to rent children
26
from families with no money @bullyville". (Exhibit A at 2)
27
28
- 7-
42.
Unsatisfied, Moore went on to call McGibney a "scam artist," and falsely claimed
McGibney owed him additional money. 6 (Exhibit A at 3)

43.
Moore further threatened to rape McGibney's wife when he was next in Las
Vegas, writing "when I'm in vegas to fuck @carolinelizbeth I'm going to fuckjames form [sic]
@bullyville's wife for the money he owes me," and, almost immediately thereafter, "hey you
have my word as a marine I'm going to fuck your wife @bullyville." (Exhibit A at 3)
44.
Moore had not had enough of defaming McGibney from his personal Twitter
account, @huntermoore, and promptly continued his campaign using the Is Anyone Up Twitter
account, @is_anyone_up. From that account, Moore made additional defamatory remarks about
10
McGibney (Exhibit B).

45.
11
Using the @is_anyone_up Twitter account, Moore wrote: "the guy who bought
12
the isanyoneup.com domain @bullyville saved all the underage pictures on his hard drive. and
13
[sic] wouldn't report them." (Exhibit Bat 1)

46.
14
15
Parodying the BullyVille brand, Moore tweeted: "that nigga @bullyville is a
pedo. he bullied little kids [sic] dicks into his mouth." (Exhibit Bat 2)
47.
16
Finally, Moore offered an incentive for others to spread his false and harmful
17
remarks about McGibney throughout Twitter: "If you tweet #bullyvilleisranbyapedophile I'll
18
send you a free tank top or wrist band". (Exhibit Bat 3)
19
V. First Cause of Action: Defamation Per Se

48.
20
21
Plaintiff realleges each and every preceding paragraph and incorporates them by
reference as if set forth herein.

49.
22
Moore's numerous statements from the @huntermoore and @is_anyone_up
23
Twitter accounts, about McGibney being a pedophile, engaging in acts of child abuse, and
24
possessing illegal content obtained from IAU, are false, harmful, and clearly identify McGibney
25
as their intended victim.
26
27
28
McGibney acknowledges that "scam artist" is non-actionable rhetorical hyperbole; this

statement does not form the basis of any specific claim of defamation independent of the specific
claim that McGibney has not satisfied his debts.
- 8-
50.
Neither McGibney nor ViaView, Inc. ever had possession, control, title, or even
access to any of the materials that had been submitted to or published on IAU, and thus could not
have stored them.
51.
Moore made these statements intentionally, and with the specific malicious intent
to harm McGibney's reputation with accusations of child abuse, pedophilia, and possession of
illegal child pornography obtained from Moore.
8
9
10
11
52.
Moore made these statements with actual malice: He knew these statements were
false at the time he made them, or made them with reckless disregard for the truth.
53.
Moore's statements, directly linking McGibney to BullyVille, were made to
damage McGibney in his business. Therefore, McGibney's damages are presumed.

54.
In addition to presumed damages, McGibney has suffered reputational harm
12
within his business and the broader community because of Moore's false, harmful and gratuitous
13
Internet attacks, as detailed above and seen in Exhibits A and B.

VI. Second Cause of Action: False Light
14
15
16
17
55.
Plaintiff realleges each and every preceding paragraph and incorporates them by
reference as if set forth herein.

56.
In the course ofMcGibney running his lawful businesses, and attempting to
18
remove one of the most problematic sites from the Internet before it could do further harm to its
19
victims and the legal rights of the user-generated website community, Moore portrayed him to
20
more than 160,000 people- falsely - as a child abuser and pedophile who had broken numerous
21
federal laws.
22
57.
Moore's statements detailed above and found in Exhibits A and B, accusing
23
McGibney of a) possessing child pornography, b) refusing to report such unlawful materials to
24
the proper authorities, c) abusing children, and d) being a pedophile, are categorically false.
25
26
58.
Moore made these false statements with actual malice: He knew these statements
were false at the time he made them, or made them with reckless disregard for the truth.
27
28
- 9-
59.
Moore's distribution of these statements through his @huntermoore and
@is_anyone_up Twitter accounts broadcast these false statements regarding McGibney to more
than 56,000 and 111 ,000 other Twitter users, respectively.
60.
By publishing these false and harmful statements about McGibney on Twitter,
Moore gave publicity to those false statements - and distributed them to more than 160,000
people.
61.
The false light in which Moore portrayed McGibney- as a pedophile, child
molester, and owner of unlawful child pornography - is highly offensive to any reasonable
person.
10
62.
As a consequence of Moore' s false statements, and his distribution of them to
11
more than 160,000 people, McGibney has suffered significant mental anguish. Moore's actions,
12
and the mental harm they have caused McGibney, adversely affect the quantity and quality of his
13
enjoyment of time with his family and friends.
14
15
VII.
Plaintiff seeks relief from the Court including the following:
16
17
1.
2.
Actual damages of more than $10,000 arising from Moore' s depiction of
McGibney in a false light and McGibney's resulting mental harm;
20
21
Actual damages of more than $10,000 arising from Moore's defamation of
McGibney and harm to Plaintiff's reputation;
18
19
Request for Relief
3.
Punitive damages of more than $10,000 for Moore's willful, deliberate, and
malicious defamation ofMcGibney;
22
4.
23
in this action; and
24
5.
25
II
26
II
27
II
28
II
An award against Moore for McGibney's attorneys' fees and court costs incurred
Any and all additional relief as ordered by the Court.
- 10-
1
2
Vill. Jury Trial Demanded

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all claims.
3
4
Dated August 20, 2012
Respectfully Submitted,
RANDAZZALEGALGROUP
~J/2r--
Marc J. Randazza
Ronald D. Green
J. Malcolm DeVoy
9
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff

James McGibney
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11 -
NO. 67-270669-14
JAMES MCGffiNEY and
VIAVIEW, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LUSHER, JENNIFER
D' ALLESANDRO, NEAL
RAUHAUSER,
Defendants
ORDER
After considering defendant Neal Rauhauser's motion to dismiss

under the Citizen Participation Act, TEX. Crv. PRAC. & REM. CODE 27.001,
et seq., the response to the motion, the affidavits and other evidence, and the
arguments of counsel, the Court GRANTS Rauhauser' s motion and
dismisses plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Within 30 days, Rauhauser shall
submit evidence of the amount of attorney's fees, court costs, and other
expenses incurred in defending against the action, as well as the appropriate
amount of sanctions to be awarded to deter plaintiffs from filing similar
actions in the future.
SIGNED the_ day of _ _ _, of2014.
PRESIDING JUDGE
22
I hereby certify that on ---=-3--=2=0__, 2014, a true and correct copy of the
_ _ Hand delivery
Certified mail
_ _ Telephonic document transfer
_x_ E-service in accordance with TEX. R. Crv. P. 21a(a)(l)
in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P. 21a to the following counsel of record:

Mr. JohnS. Morgan
jmorgan@jsmorganlaw.com
Morgan Law Firm
Telephone: 409-239-5984
FAX: 409-835-2700
Is/ Jeffrey L. Dorrell

JEFFREY L. DORRELL
24
FILED
067-270669-14
No.
JAMES MCGIBNEY AND
VIAVIEW, INC.
TARRANT COUNTY
3/19/2014 3:22:12 PM
THOMAS A. WILDER
067-270669-14
vs.
THOMAS RETZLAFF, LORA LUSHER,

DOE 3, JANE DOE 4 AND JANE DOE 5
DISTRICT CLERK
67TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Movants, JOHNS. MORGAN and the MORGANLAWFIRM, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs JAMES MCGIBNEY and VIAVIEW, INC., (Plaintiffs), brings this
Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel, and in support shows the Court the
following:
1.
This motion is based on good cause in that irreconcilable differences
have arisen between client James McGibney and his attorney. Current
counsel does not wish to set forth these irreconcilable differences within
this pleading, because the Undersigned is concerned disclosure of this
information could be potentially harmful to the Plaintiffs as they pursue
this cause of action. In addition to irreconcilable differences, Plaintiffs
and the Undersigned are not in agreement with regard to the payment of
067-270669-14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
3/19/2014 3:22:12 PM
i'
th e prosecu twn ofth"Is ca~T~
THOMASdJ/VILDER
a tt orneys 1ees an d expenses necessary 10r
CLERK
'i'
copy of this Motion, the Undersigned is complying with Rule 10 by

informing Plaintiffs and the Court that there are no settings or deadlines
of which the Undersigned is aware, with the exception of the deadline of
thirty (30) days from March 18, 2014, for responding to Rauhauser's
Requests for Disclosures, which such deadline is April 17, 2014. This is
a brand new case, there is no Docket Control Order, no trial settings, and
therefore the withdrawal of the Undersigned cannot cause any harm or
prejudice to Plaintiffs who will have ample time to seek new counsel.
2.
The Undersigned has provided to Plaintiffs this day a copy of Neal
Rauhauser's pleadings, which include his Verified Special Appearance

pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 120(a), Original Answer Subject to a Special
Appearance, Counterclaims, Jury Demand, and Requests for Disclosure.
As such, this withdrawal is not sought for delay.
3.
A copy of this motion has been delivered to Plaintiffs James
McGibney and ViaView, Inc. at their current address, Cheaterville, 10620

Southern Highlands Parkway, #110-234, Las Vegas, NV 89141, (702) 4453192, via certified mail, and through email. Plaintiffs have been notified
in writing of their right to object to this Motion for Withdrawal.
067-270669-14
4.
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
3/19/2014 3:22:12 PM
Undersigned attorneys request this Court set this Mottb~TWV~LL~~~
consideration via submission at the Court's earliest convenience.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, JohnS. Morgan and the
Morgan Law Firm, attorneys for Plaintiffs, pray that this Court grant this
Motion to Withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs, for such other and
further relief, at law or in equity, to which they may be justly entitled.
Is/ John S. Morgan

JOHNS. MORGAN
Texas Bar No. 14447475

MORGAN LAW FIRM
2175 North Street, Ste. 101

(409) 239-5984
(409) 835-2757 facsimile
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
067-2 70669-14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
3/19/2014 3:22:12 PM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of

the foregoing document has been provided to all parties and counsel of
record, via facsimile and/or certified mail, return receipt requested on this
19th day of March, 2014:
James McGibney
Via CM/RRR-#7013 2250 0001 8043 5494
Via View, Inc.
Chea terville
10620 Southern Highlands Pkwy., #110-234
Las Vegas, NV 89141
(702) 445-3192
james@bullyville.com
Jeffrey L. Dorell
Via facsimile (713) 524-2580
Philip A. Meyer
11767 Katy Frwy., Ste. 850
Is/ JohnS. Morgan

JOHN MORGAN
067-270669-14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
3/19/2014 3:22:12 PM
CERTIFICATE OF LAST KNOWN ADDRESS
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
This will certify the last known address of Plaintiffs are as follows:
James McGibney
Via View, Inc.
Cheaterville
10620 Southern Highlands Pkwy., #110-234
Las Vegas, NV 89141
(702) 445-3192
j ames@bullyville .com
Is/ John S. Morgan

JOHN S. MORGAN
----~_P_.0_0_2_______
MAR/20/2014/THU 03:58PM
No. 067-270S6914
vs.
THOMAS RETZLAFf', LORA LUSHER,

DOE 3, JANE DOE 4AND ,JANE DOE 5
JAMES McGIBNEY AND

VIAVIEW, INC.
67tH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PlAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
JAMESMcGIBNEYAND VIAVIEW, INC., Plaintiffs in the above-entitled
and numbered cause of action, files Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Without
Prejudice, and in support thereof would show the Court the following.
1)
Plaintiffs are pursuing their claims in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division. S~e attached

Exhibit "1." Plaintiffs therefore desire to dismiss this cause of action
against
Defendants,
Thomas
Retzlaff,
Lora
Lusher,
Jennifer
D'Alessandrao, Neal Rauhauser, missanonnews, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2,

Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 5, Without Prejudice.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request that
this Court grant their Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, and that
P. 003
MAR/20/2014/THU 03:58PM
Plaintiffs be granted such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to

which they may show themselves justly entitled.
Is/ JohnS. Morgan

JOHNS. MORGAN
Morgan Law Firm
2175 North Street, Ste.lOl
(409) 239-5984
(409) 835-2757 facsimile
P. 004
MAR/20/20!4/THU 03:58PM
Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that the foregoing document.

has been provided to all counsel of record, via facsimile on this 20th day of
March, 2bl4:
Jeffrey L. Dorell
Philip A. Meyer
11767 Katy Frwy., Ste. 850
Via facsimile (718) 5242580
Is/ John S. Morgan

JOHNS. MORGAN

Motion To Quash MissAnonNews Analyzed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Quash MissAnonNews Analyzed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Via View / James McGibney

CASE No. 114CH005460

UNNAMED DOES NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION TO FILE A RECORD UNDER SEAL

TO PLAINTIFF AND ITS ATTORNEYS:

Please take notice UNNAMED DOE a/k/a @MissAnonNews, @OccupyRebellion, and

Does declaration in support of a MOTION TO QUASH A 3RD PARTY SUBPOENA pursuant

to C.C.P. 425.16 to be filed under seal.

other requirements in Rule 243.1(d) are met.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

@MISSANONNEWS, @MISSANONNEWS_ AND @OCCUPYREBELLION are

@OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews, and @MissAnonNews_ . Unless this Movant can

legislation like Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16

rights to express concerns over public matters.

Allowing this MOTION TO FILE ANONYMOUSLY AND UNDER SEAL in no way

violate Plaintiffs rights. If Movants MOTION TO QUASH A 3RD PARTY SUBPOENA is

by Twitter regarding Movants identity.

As Movants MOTION TO QUASH A 3RD PARTY SUBPOENA asserts, Plaintiffs have

accounts at the center of the subpoena.

true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear

of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or

merely by a desire to preserve as much of ones privacy as possible.

enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest

in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an authors

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. . . . Under our Constitution,

anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an

honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent.

(McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341-342, 357)

prima facie showing before disclosure of a speakers identity.

Respectfully submitted Anonymously by UNNAMED DOE,

/s/ @MissAnonNews, @MissAnonNews_, @OccupyRebellion .

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Via View / James McGibney

CASE No. 114CH005460

MOTION TO QUASH 3RD PARTY SUBPOENA

it relates to my Twitter accounts @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews, and

@MissAnonNews_because the subpoena violates my First Amendment right to speak

exchanged with accounts identified as @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews, and

Plaintiffs seek subscriber information to reveal the identity of the operators of

@OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews, and @MissAnonNews_ in order to intimidate and

STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

acted unlawfully or in any way violated the Plaintiffs rights.

67th Judicial District Case # 67-270669-14 against MISSANONNEWS for defamation,

DOE 5. (see EXHIBIT C)

economic advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and public

disclosure invasion of privacy. (see EXHIBIT D)

COUNTERCLAIMS, JURY DEMAND, AND REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE. (see

Rauhauser filed a MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ACT

Texas until the Court rules on the motion. (see EXHIBIT G)

Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed a MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

pamphlets to disseminate ideas of often pseudonymous writers to energize the nascent

Cato, Brutus, Centinel, and Federal Farmer.

From a publishers standpoint, [the Internet] constitutes a vast platform from

which to address and hear from a world-wide audience of millions of readers,

individual can become a pamphleteer.

right to anonymous expression of their opinions.

pseudonyms. Those who choose pseudonyms do so to participate in uninhibited debates without