James McGibney and ViaView, Inc.'s Reply To Defendant Rauhauser's Motion To Dismiss Under The Citizen Participation Act - 1 PDF

JAMES MCGIBNEY AND VIAVIEW, INC.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT NEAL RAUHAUSERS MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER THE

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ACT PAGE 1
CAUSE NO. 067-270669-14

JAMES MCGIBNEY, and IN THE DISTRICT COURT
VIAVIEW, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

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

JAMES MCGIBNEY AND VIAVIEW, INC.S REPLY TO
DEFENDANT NEAL RAUHAUSERS MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER
THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ACT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, James McGibney and ViaView, Inc. (collectively Plaintiffs or McGibney
and ViaView ) and file this their Reply to Defendant Neal Rauhauser (Defendant or Rauhauser)
Motion to Dismiss Under the Citizen Participation Act, and in support whereof would show the
Court as follows:

I. BACKGROUND
On February 19, 2014 McGibney and ViaView filed their Original Petition and Request
for Injunctive Relief in the instant case (the Litigation), naming Neal Rauhauser among the
defendants. On March 18, 2014, before he had even been served
1
Rauhauser filed Defendant
Neal Rauhausers Verified Special Appearance asserting that this Court could not exercise
jurisdiction over him. At this point Rauhauser was aware that Plaintiffs had chosen to pursue
their claims in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division
in Cause No. 5:14-cv-01059 HRL, captioned James McGibney and ViaView, Inc. v. Thomas

1
See Defendant Neal Rauhausers Verified Special Appearance at page 1, paragraph 2 Rauhauser has
not been served. In fact Defedant Rauhauser has never been served.
067-270669-14
FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
5/21/2014 9:59:39 AM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
JAMES MCGIBNEY AND VIAVIEW, INC.REPLY TO DEFENDANT NEAL RAUHAUSERS MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER THE
Retzlaff, Neal Rauhauser, Lane Lipton and Does 1-5 (the California Federal Lawsuit).
Rauhausers reference to the Amended Complaint which had been filed on March 17, 2014 in the
California Federal Lawsuit in his Verified Special Appearance filed with this Court on March 18,
2014 leaves no doubt that Rauhauser was aware not only of the suit which had been filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, but also of the
claims asserted therein.
2
Furthermore, Rauhauser also had knowledge, prior to his filings that
Plaintiffs intended to dismiss their claims in the instant case and proceed in the California
Federal Lawsuit. The Amended Complaint in the California Federal Lawsuit clearly states:
Plaintiffs have filed a suit in Texas state court, but are in the process of withdrawing that suit.
3

In fact, when on March 19, 2014 Plaintiffs counsel in the California Federal Lawsuit, Jay
Leiderman, provided Rauhausers counsel with a copy of the Amended Complaint which had
been filed in the California Federal Lawsuit and asked if Rauhausers counsel intended to
represent Rauhauser in the California Federal Lawsuit and if he was authorized to accept service
on Rauhausers behalf,
4
Rauhausers counsel responded that We have been aware of your filing
a virtually identical federal lawsuit to the referenced Texas suit since it was filed in the
Northern District of California on March 6, 2014. We are not authorized to accept service of
process in your federal suit at this time. Rauhausers counsel went on to threaten Federal R. 11
sanctions and claim that Rauhauser was not subject to personal jurisdiction: Given the fairly
strict and specific provisions of FRCP 11, how many more harassing lawsuits based on the same

2
See Defendant Neal Rauhausers Verified Special Appearance, at page 7, n.2 referring to the Amended
Complaint which had been filed on March 17, 2014 in Cause No. 5:14-cv-01059 HRL, captioned James
McGibney and ViaView, Inc. v. Thomas Retzlaff, Neal Rauhauser, Lane Lipton and Does 1-5 pending in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division and referring to the
California Federal Lawsuit as a virtually identical suit the same plaintiffs filed against most of the same
defendants in federal court on March 6, 2014 (emphasis in original).
3
See Amended Complaint, paragraph 189, Cause No. 5:14-cv-01059 HRL, captioned James McGibney
and ViaView, Inc. v. Thomas Retzlaff, Neal Rauhauser, Lane Lipton and Does 1-5 pending in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division. A copy of the Amended
Complaint in the California Federal Suit is attached to Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice,
filed with this Court on March 20, 2014 and is incorporated herein by reference. For the Courts
convenience an additional copy of the Amended Complaint in the California Federal Lawsuit is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 1 to the Affidavit of Jason Leiderman which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A (Leiderman Affidavit). For the Courts convenience a true and correct
copy of the Complaint filed in the California Federal Lawsuit is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Leiderman
Affidavit. A copy of the Leiderman Affidavit is also attached as Exhibit A to James McGibney and
ViaView, Inc.s Plea to the Jurisidiction, Plea in Abatement/Motion to Stay and Answer.
4
See true and correct copy of email dated March 19, 2014, 6:21 p.m. from Jay Leiderman to Jeffrey
Dorrell and Phil Meyer attached as Exhibit 3 to Leiderman Affidavit.
067-270669-14
allegations do your clients intend to maintain against my client simultaneously in multiple states
none of which can exercise personal jurisdiction over my client even according to your own
allegations? (emphasis in original).
5
Less than 2 hours later, Rauhauser filed Rauhausers
Motion to Dismiss Under the Citizen Participation Act at 11:57 a.m. on March 20, 2014. The
Complaint in the California Federal Lawsuit stated in pertinent part that Plaintiffs have filed a
suit in Texas state court, but are in the process of withdrawing that suit.
6

On March 19, 2014 despite not having been served, despite claiming this Court could not
exercise jurisdiction over him, and despite being aware that Plaintiffs intended to dismiss their
claims in the instant case, Rauhauser filed Defendant Neal Rauhausers Original Answer,
Counterclaims, Jury Demand, and Requests for Disclosure. Rauhausers only counterclaim is
a counterclaim for sanctions under Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
Also on March 19, 2014 Plaintiffs counsel filed his Motion for Withdrawal.
7

The next day, March 20, 2014 Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice,
attaching as an exhibit the Amended Complaint that had been filed on March 17, 2014 in the
California Federal Lawsuit stating that Plaintiffs are pursuing their claims in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division and that Plaintiffs therefore
desired to dismiss their claims in the instant case.
8
As noted, Rauhauser was aware of Plaintiffs
intent to dismiss their claims in the instant case well in advance of Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss
Without Prejudice.
On March 20, 2014 despite not having been served, despite claiming this Court could not
exercise jurisdiction over him, and despite being aware that Plaintiffs intended to dismiss their
claims in the instant litigation Rauhauser filed his Motion to Dismiss Under the Citizen

5
See true and correct copy of email dated March 20, 2014, 10:25 a.m. from Defendant Rauhausers
counsel, Jeffrey L. Dorrell to Jay Leiderman, counsel for James McGibney and ViaView, Inc. in the
California Federal Lawsuit attached as Exhibit 4 to Leiderman Affidavit.
6
See Exhibit 2 to Leiderman Affidavit, Complaint in California Federal Litigation at paragraph 99.
7
Despite the Court having granted the Motion to Withdraw and despite new counsel appearing,
Defendant has objected to the already granted withdrawal for reasons which are not entirely clear. See
Subject to His Special Appearance, Defendant Neal Rauhausers Objection to Withdrawal of Plaintiffs
Counsel John S. Morgan. Defendant Rauhauser also seeks sanctions against Mr. Morgan apparently
based upon his motion to withdraw in addition to the sanctions Defendant Rauhauser apparently seeks to
have imposed on Mr. Morgan by way of his counterclaims.
8
See Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. The Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss
Without Prejudice was signed by the Court on March 24, 2014
067-270669-14
Participation Act.
9
Simply put, after claiming he is not subject to this Courts jurisdiction,
Rauhauser is moving to dismiss claims which have already been dismissed and is objecting to
the withdrawal of Plaintiffs former counsel despite the Court having already entered an Order
permitting the withdrawal.
10
Rauhauser is also asserting a counterclaim for sanctions under
Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
Defendants attempts to create a controversy does not change the fact that Plaintiffs
had chosen the Northern District of California, San Jose Division as the forum in which they
chose to proceed. Rauhauser was aware of Plainitffs intent to dismiss their claims in the instant
litigation well before Plaintiffs actually filed their Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.
Plaintiffs counsel in the California Federal Lawsuit wrote to Rauhausers counsel on March 20,
2014 (in response to Rauhausers counsels email of the same date stating he was aware of the
California Federal Lawsuit since its filing on March 6, 2014) that since Rauhausers counsel was
aware of the California Federal Lawsuit he was aware of Plaintiffs intent to dismiss the Texas
lawsuit as soon as possible.
11
Defendant Rauhausers response was not to deny knowledge of
Plaintiffs intent to dismiss but rather to disagree that his knowledge of the existence of the
California Federal Litigation was tantamount to being aware of Plaintiffs intent to dismiss
their claims and to then assert the circular argument that had Plaintiffs intended to nonsuit they
could have done so sooner and implying since they hadnt dismissed sooner they didnt intend
to nonsuit. Defendant further asserted that plaintiffs attempted to nonsuit their claims to avoid
the inevitable, unfavorable judicial determination of the merits, the required dismissal with
prejudice, and mandatory sanctions and went on to suggest that Plaintiffs may have a cause of
action against Mr. Morgan.
12
Defendant Rauhauser even asserted that Plaintiffs former
counsels Motion to Withdraw somehow constituted a clear reaffirmation that [Plaintiffs]
intended to proceed with the Texas lawsuit.
13
Rauhausers counsel went on to argue that
Plaintiffs had allowed Defendant Rauhauser to incur costs and Rauhauser was was obligated to

9
The hearing on Defendants Motion to Dismiss Under the Citizen Participation Act was originally set
for hearing on May 16, 2014 and is currently set for hearing Wednesday May 21, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.
10
See Order Granting Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel, executed by the Court filed March 26, 2014.
11
See true and correct copy of email dated March 20, 2014, 3:41 p.m. from Jason Leiderman to Jeffrey
Dorrell and Phil Meyer attached as Exhibit 5 to Leiderman Affidavit
12
See true and correct copy of communication from Jeffrey Dorrell to Jay Leiderman attached as Exhibit
6 to Leiderman Affidavit.
13
See true and correct copy of email dated March 21, 2014, 6:04 a.m. to Jason Leiderman attached as
Exhibit 7 to Leiderman Affidavit.
067-270669-14
continue incurring legal fees to defend himself.
14
In response to Plaintiffs counsel in the
California Federal Lawsuit pointed out that both the Complaint and Amended Complaint in the
California Federal Lawsuit clearly stated that Plaintiffs were in the process of withdrawing the
Texas suit, and that Rauhausers counsel had file[d] pleadings on behalf of a person that was
not even served in a case set to be dismissed Rauhauser could only muster the assertion that
[t]here is no process of withdrawing a Texas suit.
15

Rauhauser was never even served, Plaintiffs did not allow him to incur costs and he
was not obligated to incur legal fees he was not served and had no obligation whatsoever to
file anything with this Court. In fact, Defendant Rauhauser filed his Supplement to First
Amended Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions Under the Citizens Participation Act on May 19,
2014 in order to present evidence of court costs, attorney fees, and other expenses incurred in
defending against plaintiffs actions consisting of the Affidavit of Jeffrey L. Dorrell and
purported fee statements. However, while claiming 144.30 hours of time and a purported
$66,955.50 in attorneys fees and expenses, Mr. Dorrell states that The hourly rates of $550.00
for partners and $185.00 for legal assistants for work on McGibney v. Retzlaff are higher than
our firms typical rates for noncontingent-fee cases ($350.00 and $120.00 respectively),
reflecting the fact that the firm has assumed the risk of recovery of attorneys fees in the instant
matter by making them contingent upon the outcome of this case. See Defendant Neal
Rauhausers Supplement to First Amended Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions Under The
Citizens Participation Act, Exhibit H at paragraph 5. Simply put, Defendant Rauhauser wasnt
caused to incur any attorneys fees this is a contingent fee motion for sanctions.
Defendant Rauhauser was not obligated to file a Special Appearance. He was not
obligated to file an Answer with counterclaims and he certainly wasnt obligated to file a
Motion To Dismiss. He was never served. Rauhasuer knew of the California Federal Lawsuit
and knew of the fact that Plaintiffs intended to dismiss their claims in the instant lawsuit this
fact is clearly set forth in the Complaint and Amended Complaint in the California Federal
Lawsuit. Rauhausers argument that Plaintiffs intended to pursue the identical claims in this
Court after asserting those claims in the California Federal Lawsuit is based upon a sentence,

14
Id.
15
See true and correct copy of email dated March 21, 2014, 12:59 p.m. from Jason Leiderman to Jeffrey
Dorrell and Phil Meyer attached as Exhibit 8 to Leiderman Affidavit and true and correct copy of email
dated March 21, 2014, 1:28 p.m. to Jason Leiderman attached as Exhibit 9 to Leiderman Affidavit.
067-270669-14
taken out of context, in the Motion for Withdrawal of Plaintiffs Counsel which Mr. Morgan,
Plaintiffs former counsel filed with this Court on March 19, 2014 after he had been instructed to
file a motion to dismiss. Furthermore, such an argument requires the Court to conclude that Mr.
Leiderman, Plaintiffs counsel in the California Federal Lawsuit lied to the Federal Court in
California, not once, but twice when in the Complaint and Amended Complaint filed by him on
March 6, 2014 and March 17, 2014 he pled; Plaintiffs have filed a suit in a Texas state court,
but are in the process of withdrawing that suit.
16

Plaintiffs have filed Plea to the Jurisdiction, Plea in Abatement/Motion to Stay and have
answered raising affirmative defenses (James McGibney and ViaView, Inc.s Plea to the
Jurisdiction, Plea in Abatement/Motion to Stay and Answer).

II. DEFENDANT RAUHAUSERS MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER THE CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION ACT DID NOT SURVIVE PLAINTIFFS NONSUIT

Defendant Rauhauser knew of the California Federal Lawsuit and Plaintiffs intent to
dismiss their claims in the instant lawsuit. Defendant Rauhauser has not been served in either
this lawsuit or the California Federal Lawsuit. Defendant Rauhauser was under no obligation to
appear or answer in the instant lawsuit and incurred no costs. Here, the Plaintiffs indicated
their choice of forum (the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose
Division) and that they intended to dismiss their claims in the other forum (this Court) prior to
Defendant ever being served. Defendant knew that Plaintiffs intended to dismiss their claims in
the instant case yet he ran to the courthouse and filed a motion to dismiss claims that he knew
were being dismissed and is now pressing a motion to dismiss claims that have already been
dismissed.
The Plaintiffs had the right to nonsuit. See Travelers Ins. V. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860
(Tex. 2010). Plaintiffs nonsuit effectively nullified the controversy and rendered the merits
moot. See, e.g., City of Dallas v. Albert, 354 S.W.3d 368, 375 (Tex. 2011); Travelers Ins. Co. v.
Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex.2010); Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of
Blackmon ex rel. Shultz, 195 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex.2006) (per curiam). The purpose of the Texas
Citizen Participation Act is to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to

16
See Amended Complaint in California Federal Lawsuit at paragraph 189, Exhibit 1 to Leiderman
Affidavit, Complaint in California Federal Lawsuit at paragraph 99, Exhibit 2 to Leiderman Affidavit.
067-270669-14
petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum
extent permitted by law and, at the same time protect the rights of a person to file meritorious
lawsuits for demonstrable injury. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Sec. 27.002. The
Court of Appeals for the Second District has held that to promote these purposes, chapter 27
creates an avenue at the early stage of litigation for dismissing unmeritorious suits that are based
on the defendants exercise of free speech, petition or association as those rights are defined
within the chapter. In re Lipsky, 411 S.W.3d 530, 539 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2013, orig.
proceeding). If the defendant/movant meets his burden of showing by a preponderance of the
evidence that plaintiffs legal action is based on or relates to one of the rights covered by the Act,
the Court may still not dismiss 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. Texas
Civil Practice & Remedies Code Sec. 27.005(c).
To hold that Defendants Motion to Dismiss Under the Citizen Protection Act somehow
survives Plaintiffs nonsuit necessarily would involve the Court hearing and ruling on a motion
to dismiss claims which have been dismissed. Rather than creating an avenue at the early stage
of litigation for dismissing unmeritorious suits, adopting Defendants argument has the exact
opposite effect. Especially under the facts of this case where Plaintiffs nonsuited after choosing
the Northern District of California, San Jose Division as the forum in which they chose to pursue
their claims. In a case such as this adopting Defendants argument would allow the defendant to
use the Texas Citizen Protection Act offensively. It would arm the Defendant with a procedural
tool that the Defendant could use to insulate himself and others from the merits of Plaintiffs case
pending in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. This is exactly what
Defendant is attempting attempting to manipulate this Court as part of a procedural ploy which
can be used in the California Federal Lawsuit. See Kinney v. BCG Attorney Search, Inc., No.
03-12-00579-CV, Tex. App. LEXIS 3998 (Tex. App. Austin April 11, 2014, no pet. hist.)(copy
attached). In Kinney, Appellee, BCG Attorney Search, Inc., had sued Appellant Kinney in
California, Kinney filed a motion to strike under Californias anti-SLAPP statute. The California
court dismissed on grounds of limitations and privilege and found that BCG was exempt from
California anti-SLAPP statute. BCG subsequently sued in Texas and Kinney moved to dismiss
under Texas Citizen Participation Act and on his affirmative defense of res judicata. In
addressing whether Kinney met his burden of proof by establishing the elements of the
067-270669-14
affirmative defense of res judicata, the Court found that the California courts decision was based
on the alternative grounds of limitations and privilege. The Court also stated that [f]urther
dismissal under the California anti-SLAPP statute is essentially equivalent to dismissal on the
merits on summary judgment. Id at *29.
Defendant Rauhauser himself in a post on https://viaviewfiles.wordpress dated May 19,
2014,
17
a website which, upon information and belief is operated by Thomas Retzlaff, made it
clear that his filings in the instant lawsuit is a procedural tactic to be used in the California
Federal Lawsuit:
1. Neal Rauhauser said:
May 19, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Some thoughts in response to what was said above.
If things go badly for James McGibney in court on Wednesday I
suspect there will be a rush on in California as other victims try to
figure out how to sue James AND stick him with the bill,
HOWEVER
California is not Texas, no mandatory sanctions. A victim can anti-
SLAPP in California and thwart misuse of the courts, but they
wont recover anything, it just puts a stop to the harassment.
The anti-SLAPP statute is a state law, there is no specific federal
law in this area. State laws can be applied when they make sense,
but the circumstances regarding anti-SLAPP, particularly with
constitutionally protected activity, is unclear.
http://californiaslapplaw.com/2011/02/anti-slapp-statute-can-be-
used-in-federal-court/
I was a candidate for anti-SLAPP in Texas because I had said very
little in public about McGibney and none of it cross the line into
libel per se for a private figure, let alone a public figure such as
him.

17
A copy of Death Threats Against Me & My Family What To Do? downloaded from
https://viaviewfiles.wordpress.com is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Affidavit of Paul F. Gianni which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B.
067-270669-14
I also suspect that they are misreading the Amended Motion it
isnt an admission that I have ever written any article on this site,
all I have ever done is made some comments which I clearly
signed with my WordPress account. I dont think the quotes in the
Amended Motion are from articles here, they are from Chirpstories
of my tweets from August of 2013, which some butthurt e-lawyer
long ago got deleted, but which I had saved as PDFs.
I also had astonishingly good luck in timing there was literally
some down to the minute filing, withdrawing, unsuiting, and it
went just flawlessly for my purposes.
The bailiff will call all rise in about forty four hours. There is
nothing to do now but wait and see what happens.
In fact, Mr. Rauhauser opines that Thomas Retzlaffs affidavit (the convicted felon with a track
record for fabrication) indicates that Rauhauser and Retzlaff do not have any connection, Mr.
Rauhauser even states what the Court will do
18
:
o Neal Rauhauser said:
May 19, 2014 at 8:41 pm
The lawsuit(s) allege that I am involved in a conspiracy with
Thomas Retzlaff running this web site in an effort to destroy James
McGibney and his company. Unfortunately
I have an affidavit from Retzlaff indicating that we do not have any
connection.
The contents of this web site are 1st Amendment protected free
speech in the context of a public figure, a status which McGibney
has gone to some effort to achieve.
Even if the content were in some way actionable, I dont run this
site, nor do I know who does.
What I see McGibney and Leiderman doing are classic frivolous
litigation tactics. This includes:

18
A copy of James McGibney is a Lying Hypocrite & Piece of Human Garbage Seriously!
downloaded from https://viaviewfiles.wordpress.com is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Affidavit of Paul F.
Gianni, Exhibit B.
067-270669-14
Restraining order requests based on frivolous or entirely fabricated
threats.
Third party subpoenas for the frivolous or fabricated threats being
used to end run the discovery stop in Texas.
Shifting venue, shifting claims, shifting cast of defendants.
A judge will let things like this go on just long enough for the
plaintiff to clarify what it is they want the court to decide. If they
cant the judge will tend to issue a dismissal with prejudice (no
refiling) and they usually go the extra mile and carefully craft it so
as to pin down the plaintiff if they try a similar action in another
venue.
The hearing is in about thirty six hours. The Thomas Retzlaff
affidavit appearing was a pleasant surprise Perry Mason
moments gotchas in court based on fundamental issues are
quite rare. There is nothing to do now but wait.
Defendants Motion to Dismiss did not survive Plaintiffs nonsuit. The Court should
decline to arm Defendant with a dismissal which he could attempt to use to prevent the reaching
of the merits in the California Federal Lawsuit.

III. DEFENDANT RAUHAUSERS MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER THE CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION ACT SHOULD BE DENIED SINCE THE LEGAL ACTION IS NOT
BASED ON, RELATES TO, OR IS IN RESPONSE TO RAUHAUSERS EXERCISE OF
THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

In order to prevail on a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizen Protection Act must
meet his burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plaintiffs legal action is
based on or relates to, or is in response to one of the rights enumerated under the Act. Here, the
Defendant has only claimed that the action was based on his right of free speech.
According to Defendant, Plaintiffs give just four specific statements vaguely alleged to
have been made by Retzlaff and other Defendants. Defendant Neal Rauhausers First
Amended Motion To Dismiss And For Sanctions Under the Citizen Participation Act at
paragraph 13. Defendant refers the Court to Plaintiffs Original Petition. However, as
Defendant is well aware, Plaintiffs had decided to dismiss their claims in the instant case and
proceed in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. Of course Plaintiffs did not
067-270669-14
amend their pleading in the instant case they chose to proceed in Federal Court in California
and nonsuited the instant case. Plaintiffs pleadings in the California Federal Lawsuit set forth
Plaintiffs claims and set forth the facts relating to those claims. Plaintiffs Amended Petition in
the California Federal Lawsuit to be specific. A copy of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint in the
California Federal Lawsuit is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Affidavit of Jason Leiderman.
Oddly enough despite the opportunity to do so, Defendant Rauhauser has not chosen to
address Plaintiffs claims, or even deny Plaintiffs allegations, rather he has submitted the
affidavit of another defendant, Thomas Retzlaff, a convicted felon,
19
who claims to have never
have acted jointly with Neal Rauhauser. Mr. Retzlaff has an established track record of taking
liberties with the truth. In Tom Retzlaff v Lynda Yvonne De La Vina et al, Case No. 5:08-cv-
00170-OLG, United States District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Retzlaff had
sued administrators at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Retzlaff had been expelled from
UTSA MBA program. A female student complained to a school administrator and campus
police that Retzlaff was harassing her. It was not the first complaint against Retzlaff. A campus
police captain assessed Retzlaffs conduct as potentially criminal and instructed Retzlaff to leave
the complainant alone and not to contact her. Retzlaff disobeyed. Meanwhile, school
administrations awareness of the criminal complaint caused administration to review Retzlaffs
student file including his application for admission. Administration discovered that, among other
things, Retzlaff had submitted written statements in support of his MBA admission application
stating that he had been serving in Afghanistan and later two tours of duty in Iraq when in
fact Retzlaff was serving an eight year prison sentence from 1998 to 2004. UTSA permanently
discharged Retzlaff as a result of the many material fabrications in his application for admission
to the MBA program and because his conduct toward the other student violated the student code
it constituted harassment. See Defendants Motion and Brief for Summary Judgment
(granted) in Case No. Case No. 5:08-cv-00170-OLG, United States District Court, Western
District of Texas, San Antonio.
20
The Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment had as
exhibits affidavits of campus administrators, campus police, evidence of Retzlaffs fabrications

19
See Ex Parte Retzlaff, 135 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)(Retzlaff convicted of possession of a
weapon in a prohibited place in 1998 and sentenced to 8 years). Retzlaff has an extensive criminal
history, including pleading guilty to tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. Copies of
additional decisions are attached as Exhibit 3 to the Affidavit of Paul F. Gianni, Exhibit B
20
A true and correct copy of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment with Exhibits is attached as
Exhibit 4 to the Affidavit of Paul F. Gianni, Exhibit B.
067-270669-14
to gain admission, harassment and Retzlaffs deposition where he admitted to be serving an eight
year sentence for possession of a weapon in a prohibited place (school yard) during the time he
claimed in his application for admission that he was serving his country in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
21
During a break in his deposition Mr. Retzlaff made mention of wanting to kill people.
22

Mr. Retzlaff has also been declared a vexatious litigant and prohibited from filing any new
litigation in state or federal court.
23

Rauhauser? Defendant Rauhauser has no less than four warrants for his arrest.
24
There
are three warrants for Rauhauser outstanding in New Jersey. The New Jersey warrants are for
the offense of harassment, a violation of New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice 2C:33-4.
25

When the allegations in the California Federal Lawsuit are reviewed, Defendants claims
that any communications that he may have made are simply not protected free speech as
Defendant would have this Court believe. Again, Defendant chooses not to deny any allegations
himself, rather he asserts Plaintiffs cannot prove he was the alleged tortfeasor and at the same
time claim that the Texas Citizen Protection Act operates to prevent Plaintiffs from discovering
the truth. Defendant concludes that James McGibney is a public figure then concludes that as
a public figure any communication regarding Mr. McGibney constitutes a matter of public
concern and as such within the ambit of the Texas Citizen Protection Act. Defendant goes on to
argue that even harsh criticism of a public figure is protected.
What Defendant neglects to inform the Court of is the true nature of the conduct at issue.
https://viaviewfiles.wordpress.com is the new version of
http://mcgibneyfilesblog.worldpress.com which was shut down. A copy of
http://mcgibneyfilesblog.worldpress.com prior to it being shut down demonstrates what
Rauhauser claims to be protected First Amendment speech, calling Mr. McGibney a pedophile,

21
See Deposition of Thomas Retzlaff taken in Case No. Case No. 5:08-cv-00170-OLG, United States
District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Exhibit H to Defendants Motion for Summary
Judgment.
22
See Deposition of Thomas Retzlaff taken in Case No. Case No. 5:08-cv-00170-OLG, United States
District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Exhibit H to Defendants Motion for Summary
Judgment and Exhibits I and J, Requests for Admissions.
23
See Exhibit K to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment in Case No. Case No. 5:08-cv-00170-
OLG, United States District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio,
24
See Neal Rauhauser Warrants attached as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to the Affidavit of Lynn Shanks, attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C (Shanks Affidavit).
25
A copy of New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice 2C:33-4 is attached as Exhibit 4 to the Shanks
Affidavit.
067-270669-14
complete with a picture of Mr. McGibney and his children, claiming Mr. McGibney
impersonated a police officer, committed felonies in Texas.
26
The true scope of Defendants
version of 1
st
Amendment Protected Free Speech can best be seen in some of the posts:

And the MissAnonNews and OccupyRebellion, also shut down and accounts which, on
information and belief Rauhauser shared. Threats to Mr. McGibneys wife more threats, more
accusations of criminal activity.
27
Not to be forgotten is Mr. Rauhausers SWAT threat which
he sent directly to Mr. McGibney. SWATing is the act of making fraudulent calls to a victims
local 911 operator. The SWATter tells the 911 dispatch that there is a situation at the victims
residence hoping that local law enforcement will send a SWAT team to respond. It goes without

26
See download of http://mcgibneyfilesblog.wordpress.com attached as Exhibit 5 to the Affidavit of Paul
F. Gianni, Exhibit B.
27
See print out of some MissAnonNews and Occupy Rebellion tweets attached as Exhibit 6 to Affidavit
of Paul F. Gianni, Exhibit B.
067-270669-14
saying that the victim is put in danger of being mistakenly shot by police. Rauhausers threat:

Harsh criticism of a public figure? First Amendment protected speech? No. Such
communications are simply not protected speech. The United States Supreme Court has held
that
The protections afforded by the First Amendment, however, are not
absolute, and we have long recognized that the government may regulate certain
categories of expression consistent with the Constitution. See, e. g., Chaplinskyv.
New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571 -572 (1942) ("There are certain well-defined
and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which
has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem"). The First
Amendment permits "restrictions upon thecontent of speech in a few limited
areas, which are `of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that
may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and
morality.'" R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 382-383 (quoting Chaplinsky v.
New Hampshire, supra, at 572).
067-270669-14
Thus, for example, a State may punish those words "which by their very
utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572; see also R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul,
supra, at 383 (listing limited areas where the First Amendment permits
restrictions onthe content of speech). We have consequently held that fighting
words "those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the
ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to
provoke violent reaction" are generally proscribable under the First
Amendment. Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 20 (1971); see also Chaplinsky
v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572. Furthermore, "the constitutional guarantees of
free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of
the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to
inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce
such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam). And
the First Amendment also permits a State to ban a "true threat." Watts v. United
States, 394 U. S. 705, 708 (1969) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted);
accord, R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 388 ("[T]hreats of violence are
outside the First Amendment"); Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.
S. 753, 774 (1994); Schenckv. Pro- Choice Network of Western N. Y., 519 U. S.
357, 373 (1997).
"True threats" encompass those statements where the speaker means to
communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful
violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. See Watts v. United
States, supra, at 708 ("political hyberbole" is not a true threat); R. A. V. v. 360
City of St. Paul, 505 U. S., at 388. The speaker need not actually intend to carry
out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats "protect[s] individuals from the
fear of violence" and "from the disruption that fear engenders," in addition to
protecting people "from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur."
Ibid. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type
of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with
the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.
067-270669-14
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358-360 (2003)
The Texas Citizen Participation Act is simply inapplicable. Defendant has failed to meet his
burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs legal action is based on or
relates to his exercise of the right to free speech. Therefore, Defendants Motion To Dismiss
should be denied.
28

WHEREFORE, James McGibney and ViaView, Inc. respectfully request that the Court
grant their Plea in Abatement and dismiss this suit and render judgment that Defendant Neal
Rauhauser take nothing, in the alternative James McGibney and ViaView, Inc. request that
the Court grant their Motion to Abate/Stay and stay this matter, James McGibney and
ViaView, Inc. further request that the Court deny Defendant Neal Rauhausers Motion to
Dismiss, James McGibney and ViaView, Inc. further request this Court to award court costs
and reasonable attorneys fees to James McGibney and ViaView, Inc. as provided for under
Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, and grant them such other and
further relief to which they may be justly entitled at law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul F. Gianni
Paul F. Gianni
State Bar No. 00784124

SHANNON, GRACEY, RATLIFF & MILLER, L.L.P.
420 Commerce Street, Suite 500
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (817) 336-9333
Facsimile: (817) 336-3735
Email: pgianni@shannongracey.com

ATTORNEYS FOR JAMES MCGIBNEY AND
VIAVIEW, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

28
In the event the Court determines that Defendant has met his burden of showing by a preponderance of the
evidence that Plaintiffs legal action is based on or relates to his exercise of the exercise the right of free speech,
Plaintiffs request the opportunity to file evidence regarding the elements of their claims.
067-270669-14

This is to certify that on this 21st day of May, 2014 a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was served in the manner indicated below on the following:
John S. Morgan
Texas State Bar No. 14447475
MORGAN LAW FIRM
2175 North Street, Suite 101
Beaumont, TX 77701
Email: jmorgan@jsmorganlaw.com

CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
TELECOPY
___ FEDERAL EXPRESS/EXPRESS MAIL
___ COURIER/RECEIPTED DELIVERY
___ HAND DELIVERY (IN PERSON)
___ REGULAR MAIL
X E-SERVICE

Jeffrey L. Dorrell
Philip A. Meyer
HANSZEN & LAPORTE
11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 850
Houston, TX 77079
Email: jdorrell@hanszenlaporte.com
Email: pmeyer@hanszenlaporte.com
Attorneys for Defendant Neal Rauhauser

CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
TELECOPY
___ FEDERAL EXPRESS/EXPRESS MAIL
___ COURIER/RECEIPTED DELIVERY
___ HAND DELIVERY (IN PERSON)
___ REGULAR MAIL
X E-SERVICE

/s/ Paul F. Gianni
Paul F. Gianni

067-270669-14

EXHIBIT A

JAMES MCGIBNEY AND VIAVIEW, INC.S REPLY TO
DEFENDANT NEAL RAUHAUSERS MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER
THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ACT

067-270669-14

AFFIDAVIT OF JASON LEIDERMAN PAGE 1
CAUSE NO. 067-270669-14

JAMES MCGIBNEY, and IN THE DISTRICT COURT
VIAVIEW, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

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

AFFIDAVIT OF JASON LEIDERMAN

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF VENTURA

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this day personally appeared Jay Leiderman,
who upon being by me duly sworn upon his oath did state as follows:

1. My name is Jason Jay Leiderman, I am over the age of 18 years and I am fully
competent to make this affidavit I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below
and they are correct.

2. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and have been licensed
to practice law in the State of California since December 6, 1999.

3. I am counsel for Plaintiffs James McGibney, and ViaView, Inc. in Case No. 5:14-cv-
01059-HRL captioned James McGibney, an individual, and ViaView, Inc., a corporation
v. Thomas Retzlaff, an individual, Neal Rauhauser, an individual, Lane Lipton, an
individual, and DOES 1-5, individuals whose true names are not known, pending in the
067-270669-14

United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division. (The
California Federal Lawsuit).

4. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct
copy of the Amended Complaint filed in the California Federal Lawsuit on March 17,
2014.

copy of the Original Complaint filed in the California Federal Lawsuit on March 6, 2014.

copy of an email communication from me to Jeffrey Dorrell and Phil Meyer, dated
Wednesday, March 19, 2014 at 6:21 p.m., wherein I wrote:

Counsel;

I understand that you represent Neal Rauhauser. Attached please find
a copy of a lawsuit filed against Mr. Rauhauser in the Northern
District of California. Can you please advise if you intend to represent
Mr. Rauhauser in that suit and if you are authorized to accept service
on his behalf? Thank you.

Attached to my March 19, 2014, 6:21 p.m. email to Jeffrey Dorrell and Phil Meyer was a
true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint which had been filed in the California
Federal Litigation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

copy of an email communication from Jeffrey Dorrell to me and Phil Meyer, dated
Thursday, March 20, 2014 at 10:25 a.m., wherein Mr. Dorrell wrote:

Mr. Leiderman:

We have been aware of your filing of a virtually identical federal
lawsuit to the referenced Texas suit (on which your name also appears)
since it was filed in the Northern District of California on March 6,
2014. We are not authorized to accept service of process in your
federal suit at this time.
067-270669-14


Given the fairly strict and specific provisions of FRCP 11, how
many more harassing lawsuits based on the same allegations do your
clients intend to maintain against my client simultaneously in multiple
statesnone of which can exercise personal jurisdiction over my
client even according to your own allegations?

copy of an email communication from me to Jeffrey Dorrell and Phil Meyer, dated
Thursday, March 20, 2014 at 3:41 p.m., with the attachment Morgan Clarification of
Counsel, wherein I wrote:

Counsel;

Thank you for your email.

Attached please find a copy of a pleading from the Texas suit
clarifying who is and is not counsel on that case.

I am gratified that you were aware of the Federal suit. You were then
aware that it is Mr. McGibneys intent to dismiss the Texas suit as
soon as possible. Were told this may be accomplished in the next few
days.

Well look forward to hearing from Mr. Rauhauser in connection with
the suit in Northern California. He is, of course, welcome to file any
motion that is appropriate. If you are to continue as counsel, well
look forward to working with you. If not, be well and thank you for
the communication.

copy of a communication from Jeffrey Dorrell wherein Mr. Dorrell wrote:

Within three hours of our filing the foregoing motion, plaintiffs
attempted to nonsuit their claims to avoid the inevitable, unfavorable
judicial determination of the merits, the required dismissal with
prejudice, and mandatory sanctions. If Mr. Morgan acted without
authority in bringing the Texas suit, or failed to act as he was
instructed in dismissing the Texas suit sooner, then your clients may
have a cause of action against Mr. Morgan for breach of his fiduciary
duty as their agent, or for legal malpractice. That is between your
clients and Mr. Morgan, and does not concern us. We are concerned
067-270669-14

only with the fact that Mr. Morgans actions as plaintiffs agent bind
his principalsyour clientsto the consequences.

Your clients' liability for Mr. Rauhausers attorneys fees
cannot be purged by nonsuiting plaintiffs' frivolous and unsupported
claims after those attorneys fees have already been incurred. See
Scott & White Memorial Hospital v. Schexnider, 940 S.W.2d 594,
595 (Tex. 1996); see also Epps v. Fowler, 351 S.W.3d 862, 871-72
(Tex. 2011); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 863
(Tex. 2010). The Texas Supreme Court has often expressed its
disapproval of a nonsuit by a calculating plaintiff [who]
voluntarily withdraws his complaint to escape a disfavorable judicial
determination on the merits. See Epps v. Fowler, 351 S.W.3d 862,
869-70 (Tex. 2011), citing Dean v. Riser, 240 F.3d 505, 510 (5th Cir.
2001) (quoting Marquart v. Lodge 837, Intl Assn of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, 26 F.3d 842, 852 (8th Cir. 1994)); see also In re
Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 260 (Tex. 2008); In re Bennett,
960 S.W.2d 35, 36 (Tex. 1997); Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892
S.W.2d 853, 854 (Tex. 1995).

My client has every intention of seeking compensation for the
legal fees he incurred in defending your clients groundless Texas suit.

copy of an email communication from Jeffrey Dorrell to me, Phil Meyer and Ron Page,
dated Friday, March 21, 2014 at 6:04 a.m., wherein Mr. Dorrell wrote:

Counsel:

I do not agree that my knowledge of the existence of two virtually
identical lawsuits filed by your clients against Mr. Rauhauser in different
jurisdictions is tantamount to being aware that it was Mr. McGibneys
intent to dismiss the Texas suit as soon as possible. In fact, plaintiffs
actions were precisely to the contrary. I am prepared to demonstrate this
in the 67th District Court in a motion to be filed shortly.

If it had been your clients' intent to nonsuit the Texas case, they could
obviously have done this immediately upon your filing the federal suit in
California on March 6, 2014or even earlier when the intent to file suit
in federal court in California was first formed. Instead, plaintiffs allowed
Mr. Rauhauser to incur the cost of hiring counsel to research and draft a
special appearance, original answer, and counterclaim for almost a
monthfinally filing these on March 17, 2014. Even then, the next filing
by plaintiffs on March 19, 201413 days after filing the federal suit in
067-270669-14

Californiawas NOT a nonsuit of the referenced Texas case but, instead,
a clear reaffirmation that your clients intended to proceed with the Texas
lawsuit. Here is what was filed:

The Undersigned [Morgan] is concerned disclosure of this
[mysteriously undisclosed] information could be potentially harmful
to the Plaintiffs as they pursue this cause of action.

Stating an intent to "pursue this cause of action is directly repugnant to
your self-serving claim at 5:40 PM on March 20, 2014, that your clients
always intended "to dismiss the Texas suit as soon as possible.
Therefore, Mr. Rauhauser was obliged to continue incurring legal fees to
defend himself by having his attorneys research, draft, file, and serve his
Motion to Dismiss Under the Citizen Participation Act. That statute, as
you may know, requires dismissal of claims with prejudice, award of
attorneys fees, court costs, and other expenses, as well as a mandatory
award of sanctions "sufficient to deter plaintiffs from filing other such
suits. I assume you already have this, but attached is what we filed
yesterday:

copy of an email communication from me to Jeffrey Dorrell dated Friday, March 21,
2014 at 12:59 p.m., wherein I wrote:

Mr. Dorell;

As you are now clearly aware, I am not counsel on the Texas suit nor
am I privy to what has transpired in that suit. If there is something you
feel is relevant to me that you would like me to review, please send it
along and Ill be happy to review it.

When you stated that you were aware of the federal suit I filed I
presumed you read the suit. Both the complaint and the amended
complaint state clearly that Plaintiff was in the process of withdrawing
the Texas suit. Armed with this knowledge, you ran into court to file
pleadings on behalf of a person that was not even served in a case set
to be dismissed. You appear to me to be deliberately attempting to run
up legal fees in a moot matter. I have no doubt that any judge in any
court in this land will see that.

It further appears that you cant take dismissed for an answer.
Accordingly, I wish you good luck in that endeavor and I bid you
farewell unless you are to be counsel on the federal suit.

067-270669-14
It was not until my client filed a dispositive motion that your clients
nonsuited on March 20, 2014. All the e-mails in the world cannot
change this chronology. It speaks for itself."
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
191-1.
Jason Lei
SUBSCRIBED CmRIBE,3014 DAND SWORN T BEFOR
day
by the said Jason Leiderman on this
C Y N T H I A D E L A N I O T T E
C ommission # 1905040
N otary Public - C alifornia
A 4,C 117,7Ventura C ounty" "
MC omm. E x T res O ct 17 2014
TARY PUBLICFOR
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11."Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct
copy of an email communication from Jeffrey Dorrell to me dated Friday, March 21,
2014 at 1:28 p.m., wherein Mr. Dorrell wrote:
"Counsel:
There is no "process of withdrawing" a Texas suit.It takes less than
5 minutes to draft and file a "Notice of Nonsuit," which is effective
immediately upon filing. Your clients did not file a nonsuit for over 4
weeks (although they did draft and file several other things). At the
same time, your clients declared their intention to continue prosecuting
the suit to the very Texas judge in whose court your clients' frivolous
claims were pending. Thus, my client was obliged to defend himself.
AFFIDAVIT OF JASON L E I D E RMA N PAGE 6
067-270669-14

EXHIBIT 1
To AFFIDAVIT OF JASON LEIDERMAN

067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 1
LAW OFFICES OF JAY LEIDERMAN
5740 Ralston Street, Suite 300
Ventura, California 93003
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
25
26
27
28

JASON S. LEIDERMAN, SBN 203336
jay@criminal-lawyer.me
Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280

Attorney for Plaintiffs
JAMES MCGIBNEY
VIAVIEW, INC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMES MCGIBNEY, an individual, and
VIAVIEW, INC, a corporation,
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.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
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
corporation (collectively, Plaintiffs), set forth the following causes of action against Defendants
Thomas Retzlaff (Retzlaff), Neal Rauhauser (Rauhauser), and Lane Lipton (Lipton), and yet
unnamed Does 1-5 (collectively, Defendants), and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Beginning in or about June 2013 and continuing through the present, Defendants, acting
individually and in concert, have engaged in a civil conspiracy to destroy Plaintiffs herein. Defendants
have relentlessly harassed, defamed, cyber-stalked and invaded the privacy of Mr. McGibney, in a
Case5:14-cv-01059-HRL Document5 Filed03/17/14 Page1 of 34
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 2
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
25
26
27
28

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
Las Vegas, Nevada. ViaView is the owner and operator of the popular websites
http://www.bullyville.com (BullyVille), an anti-bullying website, http://www.karmaville.com
(KarmaVille), a website devoted to good and bad karma, http://www.slingerville.com
(SlingerVille), a website about tattoos, http://www.cupidville.com (CupidVille), an online dating
site, and http://www.cheaterville.com (CheaterVille) and anti-infidelity website.
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.
7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants named herein as
Doe Defendants 1 through 5 are other individuals, the true names and locations of whom are unknown.
JURISDICTION
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, as the parties in this case
are completely diverse and the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of
$75,000.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 3
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
25
26
27
28

VENUE
9. A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims sued upon herein occurred in San Jose,
California.
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.
11. Likewise, on information and belief, each Defendant knew Plaintiff ViaView was based in San
Jose, California.
12. On information and belief, Defendants intentionally directed their conduct in order to cause harm
to Plaintiffs interests in San Jose.
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
I. Plaintiffs Operate Popular Anti-Bullying Website BullyVille and Anti-Infidelity Website
CheaterVille.
14. Plaintiff Mr. McGibney is a business owner and former United States Marine. Mr. McGibney
served tours of duty with Third Surveillance Reconnaissance Intelligence Group and Marine Security
Guard Battalion. He was awarded the Navy Achievement Medal for computer security support to 128
U.S. Embassies. Mr. McGibney is the CEO and founder of his business, ViaView, which operates the
websites BullyVille and CheaterVille (the Websites). ViaView has a board of directors.
15. 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.
16. In line with the goals of the Websites, Mr. McGibney vigorously exerts social and financial
pressure on owners, operators and purveyors of revenge porn websites with the intent of shuttering
those websites. Wikipedia has a good definition of revenge porn. It states: Revenge porn is sexually
explicit media that is publicly shared online without the consent of the pictured individual. [] Revenge
porn is typically uploaded by ex-partners or hackers. Many of the images are selfies which are taken
by the subject of the photo. The images are often accompanied by personal information, including the
pictured individuals full name, links to Facebook and social media profiles or addresses.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 4
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
25
26
27
28

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.
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:
a. Spokeo.com
b. Lijit.com
c. Advertise.com
d. Godaddy.com
e. Digit covers
21. Combined advertising revenue lost as the result of Defendants conduct exceeds $19,300 per
month. This loss does not include other losses described herein. The calculations of loss for the effect
upon other advertisers that would have been drawn to the sites, or from the loss of clicks toward
advertisers that have remained, attributable directly to the direct harassment of Mr. McGibney or the
harassment of celebrity spokespeople described in detail herein, has ratcheted up the loss to at least
$250,000.00 already, and that amount grows each day.
22. Prior to Defendants conduct complained of herein, Plaintiffs enjoyed a good working
relationship with his advertisers listed in paragraph 20 and most advertisers had been doing business
with ViaView continuously for two or more years. Visits to BullyVille and CheaterVille were growing
and neither site had problems with celebrity spokespersons wanting to distance themselves from his
websites. Rather, it was quite the opposite: many high profile celebrities have supported BullyVille over
the years.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 5
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
25
26
27
28

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
numerous revenge porn websites. Within one site, where he uploaded naked images of his own daughter,
he stated, I wanna rape her, I will see u in El Paso Brittany.
25. As a result, a number of women victimized by these sites, and Retzlaffs conduct, have filed
multiple lawsuits and restraining orders against Retzlaff in Texas. Plaintiff Mr. McGibney has been
helpful in the causes against Retzlaff.
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.
27. Once Mr. McGibney successfully shut down a few of these websites, including
ISANYONEUP.COM, he immediately became a target, indeed an obsession, for Retzlaff.
28. Beginning in late October 2013, Retzlaff began targeting Plaintiffs using a vast array of social
media accounts, across many different platforms, using many different aliases. These aliases,
colloquially referred to as sock puppets or socks, were intended to hide Retzlaffs true identity.
They had the further purpose of creating the illusion of broad support for Retzlaffs extreme views while
he carried out his stalking and cyber-terrorism. In actuality, Retzlaffs public support came primarily
or entirely from accounts controlled and maintained by him and other co-defendants to this action.
29. 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;
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 6
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
25
26
27
28

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;
m. The Twitter account @Klansmann;
n. E-mail alias Dean Allen: deanallen5634@outlook.com;
o. E-mail alias Dean Anderson: deananderson714@yahoo.com; and
p. Wikipedia.org alias deadgoldfish.
30. Plaintiffs have taken numerous steps to confirm that it is Retzlaff behind each alias or sock
listed herein, including but not limited to lawfully tracking internet protocol addresses
1
and matching
email addresses between accounts. Mr. Retzlaff does not take significant steps to conceal his identity
online besides using multiple names and accounts and a less-than-stable VPN
2
connection. Plaintiff is
certain he can prove that all accounts complained of herein belong to Retzlaff. He is informed and
believes that all accounts belong to Retzlaff and thereon alleges that Retzlaff uses the accounts to
illegally harass, defame and stalk Mr. McGibney.
31. Plaintiffs reasonably anticipate that Retzlaff and the other Defendants will continue to create
multiple aliases to harass, stalk, terrorize and defame Plaintiffs and their business partners in order to
continue inflicting emotional and financial harm.

1
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.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 7
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
25
26
27
28

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
somewhere and youre go [sic] to go. So go ahead James, keep it up. Sooner or later youre going to
step on the wrong set of toes and youre going to come across a real life tough guy, not an internet tough
guy like a Hunter Moore,
[3]
and its gonna cost you and your family your lives.
35. On November 2, 2013, Retzlaff replied to a comment on BullyVille with his LongJohnSilver
alias Crazy people do not care if they get caught. They will kill you regardless as to the consequences
to them because they are crazy. So while its all well and good that the FBI will eventually catch them
(assuming theyre not one of the 40% who literally get away with murder), it does you little good if
youre the dead guy or the dead family.
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:
a. James McGibney at BullyVille is a lying piece of human garbage.
b. Obviously [a reality TV stars]
4
and Bullyvilles allegations are a complete lie. That
f@ggot who runs BullyVille, James McGibney was screaming and hollering about
how he (McGibney) was going to get Jon and all of his supporters and how Jon was a

3
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.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 8
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
25
26
27
28

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.
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.
38. On the same website, Retzlaff amplified his harassment by also using the alias Molly Santucci,
agreeably replying to posts by Scott Jewels.
39. On November 15, 2013, Retzlaff again used the alias Molly Santucci to directly contact DJ
ASHBA via Facebook. Mr. Ashba, as is described below, is a musician and celebrity spokesperson for
BullyVille. Mr. Ashba was falsely told that CheaterVille is a revenge porn website and Retzlaff, via
sock accounts encouraged DJ ASHBA to remove [his] endorsement and end [his] relationship with
revenge porn BullyVille!!!!!!!!
40. On the same day, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @KellySwift4, tweeted a similar statement to Mr.
Ashba: @DjASHBA Why do you support revenge porn w/ ur BullyVille endorsements? Dont u know
BV runs Cheaterville revenge porn site too?!!
5

41. Mr. Ashba is a musician with a world-famous rock group. His endorsement created a lot of
interest in BullyVille from advertisers new and old. Plaintiffs estimate he drove hundreds of thousands
of visitors to BullyVille every month.
42. After receiving these and other unwanted messages from Retzlaff, and learning that Retzlaff was
convicted of a felony and served time in prison, Mr. Ashba became fearful for his safety and the safety
of his family.
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.

5
BV is an abbreviation for BullyVille and Retzlaff uses it frequently to reference both the site and Mr. McGibney himself, or
both.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 9
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
25
26
27
28

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
tweeted Mr. McGibneys wifes name and their Las Vegas address. Retzlaff then tweeted Mr.
McGibneys San Jose address.
47. On November 15, and November 26, 2013, Retzlaff, using email alias James Smith, sent
harassing e-mails to blogger Adam Steinbaugh. Steinbaugh and McGibney worked together to shutter
revenge porn websites. In these e-mails, Retzlaff threatened to release private information about Mr.
McGibney:
a. I happen to work for a large multi-national company overseas, as I mentioned to you
before. As such, my HR Dept. has access to the LexisNexis Accurint LE Plus and
ChoicePoint CLEAR databases so as to fulfill all of our Govt contracts and regulatory
requirements. So if I were to say look up an Adam Steinbaugh or a James McGibney,
I would have access to a whole host of valuable personal, financial, and legal
information. What kind of car they drive, who they bank with, where they have lived
at for the past 20 yrs. (and who with), credit reports, traffic and arrest info, property
transactions, civil cases, any kind of hunting, fishing or drivers licenses, or trade
licenses, and just pages and pages worth of stuff. But not just on them, but on each of
their family members, too! And the family members of those family members.

6
Dox is a common Internet abbreviation for documents, usually referring to personal information. Doxing is the act of
publishing such personal information.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 10
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
25
26
27
28

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,
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 filth.
49. That statement is false and, as with all of the others, it was made with the knowledge of its
falsehood and with actual malice. Neither Mr. McGibney, nor ViaView, charge anyone to remove their
posts from CheaterVille, nor do they allow pornography or any nudity for that matter.
50. On that same date, and through his @mrtexxxan Twitter account, Defendant Retzlaff tweeted It
will be really funny seeing someone post pics of ur wife Christina when she is shopping at Smiths
with ur two kids.
51. On December 6, 2013, Retzlaff, using alias DickHertz, publicly posted on celebrity gossip
website TheDirty.com: James & Christina McGibney run Bullyville website, a site that HATES Nik
and the Dirty. Yet McGibney and his wife also run revenge porn site CheaterVille! And they also work
with scam take Down Hammer site TruthInPosting.com to charge little girls $199 to remove
Cheaterville pics and posts. Talk about hypocrites! McGibney and his wife scam girls with revenge
porn, but they hate Hunter Moore and Nik!!!
52. This is another complete and intentional lie by Retzlaff. Users of CheaterVille have the option to
login and make their post invisible. Furthermore, CheaterVille adheres to all DMCA takedown requests
within 48 hours, and refers cases that cannot be resolved to an independent arbitration service called
TruthInPosting (TIP).
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 11
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
25
26
27
28

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
there. YOU NEED TO PULL YOUR ADS NOW!!!!
55. Brickhouse Securitys Facebook account replied: 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
you, Brickhouse Security Team.
56. Shortly thereafter, Brickhouse Security pulled all ads from CheaterVille.
57. On December 17, 2013, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @PedoCaptain, publicly tweeted at
BullyVilles Twitter account: @BullyVille I would like to bury a hatchet right in your fucking
damn face. Public info: [address redacted] vegas [sic] ANYONE?????
58. On or around December 26, 2013, Retzlaff, using Facebook alias Kelly Swift, publicly posted
further accusations on the Facebook page of a BullyVille advertiser that Mr. McGibney was operating a
revenge porn website.
59. On December 30, 2013 and January 7, 2014, Retzlaff, using E-mail alias James Smith, sent Mr.
McGibney harassing e-mails which mentioned advertisers . . . dropping you like a bad habit and
celebrities [who] are runny [sic] away as fast as they can. It continued: Youve got a business to run
here and putting up crazy, irrational tweets isnt going to make customers comfortable or advertisers
happy.
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?
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 12
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
25
26
27
28

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!
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:
@BullyVille Yes, because getting into a pointless twitter fight w/ someone who has nothing to lose is a
winning strategy for ur family. This was a response to a tweet from BullyVille which read, Strong
people stand up for themselves but the strongest people stand up for others. The header (description)
for @BV_Truther was exposing the truth about Bullyvilles lies by calling HR Depts one at a time and
getting ads on revenge porn sites shut down as soon as they pop up!
64. On February 2, 2014, Retzlaff, posting on an anonymous account, submitted pictures and text
disparaging Mr. McGibney on www.myex.com, an actual revenge porn website.
7
The post was titled
James McGibney is a lying hypocrite who cheats!! and stated that Mr. McGibney extorts money
from young girls and their families over the internet. He is the scum of the earth.
65. This post, which created a web page titled Naked Pics of James A. McGibney Las Vegas
Nevada: MyEx.com appeared in Google search results for James McGibney, meaning that when
someone would search for information about Plaintiff McGibney, this false and defamatory post would
be listed in the results. The post did not in fact include any naked pictures.

7
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.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 13
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
25
26
27
28

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
threatened him: @Sarelya23 [known to be Lora Lusher] And how difficult is it to send yourself a nasty
email and then claim that ur enemy did it? BV keeps sending ME death threats
70. On February 9, 2014, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @BV_Truth, tweeted: I wonder what
happened to all the advertisers on Bullyville & Cheaterville. Several months ago it used to be FILLED
with ads.
71. Using Wikipedia.org account deadgoldfish, Retzlaff repeatedly defaced Mr. McGibneys
Wikipedia page, deleting facts about Mr. McGibneys biography and adding false statements as well.
Retzlaff sometimes made dozens of edits per day. Wikipedia eventually banned Retzlaffs account and
locked the user editing function on Mr. McGibneys page.
72. During this time period (October 2013 present), Retzlaff posted numerous harassing and
defamatory things on a now defunct blog at http://itsabouttruth.wordpress.com. His conduct included
coordinating attacks against McGibney and ViaView with other blog members on ViaView advertisers.
Retzlaff still operates an active blog dedicated to stalking and defaming Mr. McGibney and ViaView.
73. As recently as March 3, 2014, Defendant Retzlaff sent an email to the school principal of one of
the board members children and caused such fear that the child has been removed from the school for
her safety and for the safety of other children. The local Police Department in Orange County were
immediately contacted and an investigation has been launched against Defendant Retzlaff. This is now
the fifth police investigation launched against Thomas Retzlaff across the country (Las Vegas, Northern
and Southern California, San Antonio and Fort Worth.)
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 14
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
25
26
27
28

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,
two potential investors in ViaView began to fear for their safety. This fear of Retzlaff caused these two
investors, whose potential combined investment amount totaled $250,000, to back out of the pending
deal.
76. The FBI is aware of Retzlaff as numerous complaints have been filed through IC3 and local FBI
offices throughout the Country. His harassing activities have been enjoined by several different courts
in actions with different plaintiffs than are present herein, through multiple restraining orders.
77. The State of Texas has deemed Retzlaff a vexatious litigant. He has filed, by a courts estimate
in 2006, between 50 and 60 lawsuits. Most of his lawsuits were prosecuted in propia persona. He is
knowledgeable about the law to a certain extent, and often gives away his identity by discussing legal
matters as he consistently frames issues by reference to Texas or Texas state law.
III. Neal Rauhausers Initial Role.
78. Defendant Neal Rauhauser is a left-wing blogger/activist/self-admitted hacker engaged in a
vicious, petty, prolonged and sustained attrition battle with a series of right-wing blogger/activists. His
political activities inform and drive his actions in all other areas of his life. Rauhauser is obsessively
online seeking to advance his personal agenda and the causes of the left. He is a sworn enemy of all that
oppose his personal agenda. Even a perceived slight to Rauhausers activities is cause for Rauhauser to
declare war, and he has done so prolifically over the past few years, including a declaration in favor of
destroying Mr. McGibney.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 15
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
25
26
27
28

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.
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
Twitter account @OccupyRebellion, a prominent account with many followers. This
@OccupyRebellion account was often used in the aforementioned battles with right-wing bloggers,
indeed, it was his most effective platform.
83. In mid-late 2013, after Mr. McGibney bought and took down the revenge porn site
isanyoneup.com, @OccupyRebellion began interacting with Mr. McGibney in a positive and prosocial
way.
84. After Mr. McGibney became involved in defending a reality TV star being viciously harassed
online, @OccupyRebellion turned on Mr. McGibney and began targeting Mr. McGibney with
harassment.
85. Other Twitter accounts operated by independent people saw @OccupyRebellions harassment of
Mr. McGibney as unjust, and retaliated against @OccupyRebellion.
86. As a result, the @OccupyRebellion account is no longer active, and Rauhauser lost his most
powerful platform. On information and belief, Rauhauser blames McGibney for this loss. He carries
that grudge forward to this day. @OccupyRebellion was vital to his anonymous attacks on right wing
bloggers, and Rauhauser, on information and belief, carries a grudge.

8
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.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 16
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
25
26
27
28

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
BullyVille.
90. Another time, Rauhauser tweeted from his account a screen shot purporting to be his desktop. In
the picture, one can clearly see a plan to attack Mr. McGibney, Becca Tobin and others associated with
ViaView. It was a threat.
91. Rauhauser shared screen shots of files on his computer more than once. All showed that
Rauhauser had plans to ruin Mr. McGibney.
92. In a private instant message chat that Rauhauser had with a third party in December 2013, he
announced his intent to cause damage to Plaintiffs: So, McGibney, is there any reason not to lay waste
to [his] whole business?
93. Rauhauser wanted to destroy Mr. McGibney. He took that plan and put it into action. The result
was the allegations contained herein, and much more.
IV. 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

9
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.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 17
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
25
26
27
28

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
then attacking in a manner quite similar across accounts, and quite similar to her conduct on the BVFiles
blog.
97. Lipton segregates her personas rather well. For example, her @LaneLipton account uses her real
name and is fairly polite, and largely uninvolved in arguments. This is the public persona that she
wishes to display. @qritiq is a milder and less vitriolic than her full-blown attack accounts. That
account, which was a sock account until it got doxed, and Lipton openly admitted it was her, got
involved in the same types of controversies with the same general groups of people, but was usually
prone to playing the victim and was not entirely antisocial. The @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews
and @MissAnonNews_ accounts were almost sociopathic in their attacks when she was tweeting from
it. The account stalked, doxed, threatened, menaced, smeared, and generally harassed in an unmitigated
fashion. That was the true prize fighter in both Lipton and Rauhausers arsenal. And after one fight
with Mr. McGibney over a reality TV show, it lost all credibility and then was suspended and lost
entirely.
98. The patterns of @qritiq and the anti-social accounts track with each other as it relates to Mr.
McGibney. For example, after @occupyrebellion got mad at Mr. McGibney for sticking up for an
embattled reality TV star, @qritiq began casting stones at Mr. McGibney from her Twitter account as
well. The two attacks were two days apart in August 2013.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 18
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
25
26
27
28

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.
102. Likewise, Rauhauser and @qritiq often loop @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews and
@MissAnonNews_ into their conversations, such that they might have agreement and harmonization
throughout accounts. Though it is the two of them talking to themselves, it looks like more people.
103. On information and belief, we are able to tell when Rauhauser uses the accounts and
when Lipton uses them. Rauhauser uses a calmer, more evil, deceptive and plotting persona, whereas
Lipton is overtly vicious and out of control.
104. The @OccupyRebellion account was lost in June 2013. After that, Rauhauser and Lipton
really geared up their revenge and began to attack Mr. McGibney in concert.
V. 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
credentials for the @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews and @MissAnonNews_ accounts. Twitter
has now suspended all accounts.
106. On information and belief, one or more of Doe Defendants 1 through 5 also possessed
working login credentials for the @OccupyRebellion, @MissAnonNews and @MissAnonNews_
Twitter accounts and are responsible for some of the statements detailed below.
107. Rauhauser and Lipton used the @MissAnonNews accounts to publish a great number of
harassing and defamatory tweets about Defendants. These statements were false, made with knowledge
of their falsehood, and were made with actual malice, spite and ill will. The statements below were
067-270669-14

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
25
26
27
28

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
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
c. I said for weeks this was a set up framing men as pedos. Now u admit SHE
NEVER EXISTED. . . .
d. YOU SAID YOU KNOW HER IN REAL LIFE AND SHES SO
TRAUMATIZED. NOW YOU ADMIT THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNDERAGE
GIRL. #Anonymous
e. EVERY SINGLE PERSON LINKED TO BULLYVILLE IS A PEDOPHILE AND
CHILD ABUSER. YOU JUST ADMITTED SHE NEVER EXISTED.
#Anonymous
f. Either Bullyville is sexually exploiting minors. Or hes lying saying she never
existed in order to avoid LAWSUITS. #Anonymous
g. Bullyville and every single piece of trash around him are child abusers who give real
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
predator Bullyville started threatening the lives of the people who accused
AnonChimp SECONDS after hearing the story.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 20
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
25
26
27
28

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.
p. You would have to pay your lawyers to come find me. I can get them pro-bono.
q. JAMES MCGIBNEY IS A PEDOPHILE. [] JAMES MCGIBNEY IS A
PEDOPHILE. [] JAMES MCGIBNEY IS A PEDOPHILE. [] JAMES MCGIBNEY
IS A PEDOPHILE.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 21
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
25
26
27
28

r. Mr. McGibney, we found an empty email account tied to her Twitter account. You
also cant arrest a Tor node.
10

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
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
Cheaterville. Why was that removed from Wikipedia? [retweeted from
@rchPr1357]
c. You have bigger things to worry about than your Wikipedia page.
d. When this is all said and done with, the name James McGibney will be forever tied
to pro-rape, pro-pedophile, and pro-child abuse.
110. On February 5, 2014, @MissAnonNews_ published the following statements, directed at
Mr. McGibney:
a. Why do pedo hunters hang around that bitch [Mr. McGibney]? What happened to
saving children?
b. If that blonde is @TeenMomTruth, there are better looking women on cam shows
who can make pretend they like you.
c. Was @TeenMomTruth sending her nudes to Bullyville too? Is that why they all
ditched real pedo hunting to be that whores personal army?
d. Was Bullyville cheating on his wife with @TeenMomTruth????? Does Christina
Marie Orduna McGibney know?????

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.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 22
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
25
26
27
28

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

c. One of the owners of that extortion site is a defendant listed as a John Doe. More
likely James McGibney.
d. It would take too much work and efforts for deadbeats James & Christina McGibney
to get real jobs. They rely on EXTORTION.
e. Why did James & Christina McGibney recently move from Nevada to California?
What are the cowards running from?
f. What a great day it would be if someone kicked down their door and permanently
silenced them. Two less revenge porn site owners alive.
g. There isnt one single difference between Hunter Moore or the deadbeat
McGibneys. Moore at least admits to what he does.
h. Bullyville and the pedophiles who masquerade as pedo hunters still to this day
release the nudes of several men and women. REVENGE PORN.
i. There is no difference between James & Christina McGibney and Hunter Moore.
The McGibney wont stop riding Moores coattails.
j. You think you could hide moving from Las Vegas to now living in California?
k. What will McGibney do when the lawsuits and RICO suit start rolling through? Get
wannabe Anons after them again trying to silence them?

11
Rauhauser is known to repetitively discuss filing civil RICO suits against his opponents.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 23
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
25
26
27
28

l. Bullyvilles revenge porn site is already being sued. The extortion site was hit with
a RICO suit.
m. Why does Bullyville accuse people of threatening to kill him? Id be surprised if he
survives to see the next decade.
n. You dont do what the McGibneys have done for YEARS and think you wont get a
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
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.
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
star] has joined forces with Stranahan the pimp and rape supporter.
b. Because thats what being a pedo hunter these days is all about.
c. Oh hai, if your wife Christina Marie Orduna McGibney was gang raped, according
to your pal Stranahan its her fault and not brutal.
d. Bullyville and Stranahan also have porn in common.
e. Stranahan shoots porn. Many with his wife Lauren. While Bullyville has several
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.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 24
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
25
26
27
28

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
website with a similar URL to bvfiles.wordpress.com. He used bvfiies.wordpress.com. When you
capitalize that second "i" it looks like an L (BVFiIes.wordpress.com).
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.
a. Apparently bvfiles administrator (admin) sees the link claiming the site is down and
hits the parody site triggering the iplogger: Time 1:21:33pm from IP: 69.121.50.17
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
then proceeds to login to fix the website - but not before getting behind a VPN since
now they were logging into the account and Wordpress.com will log their IP along
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 25
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
25
26
27
28

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.
119. It was determined that this was Lane Lipton because the IP address: 69.121.50.17 -
comes back to Roslyn, NY the known home of Lane Lipton an ardent Bullyville detractor, and that IP
series had been previously identified as Liptons and @qritiqs. Lipton is the only loud and virulent
critic of BullyVille and McGibney known to be from the Roslyn, New York area, or anywhere close
thereby.
120. The recovery phone number for she.purrs@hotmail.com ends in 01.
121. On information and belief, Lane Liptons phone number ends in 01. The probability of
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
Lipton is known to use.
VII. 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
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 26
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
25
26
27
28

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).
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
pedophile? This poll was accompanied by statements strongly suggesting that Mr. McGibney is in fact
a pedophile. He is not. Defendants posted a picture of McGibneys children under the Pedophilia
comments with the caption are these children in danger? Statements such as these, relating that
someone is a pedophile are defamatory per se.
130. The bvfiles.wordpress.com site contains a number of features demonstrating Retzlaffs
involvement: (1) it uses the same Internet Tough Guy image associated with several of Retzlaffs
aliases; (2) it consistently frames issues by reference to Texas or Texas state law.
131. Defendants use the bvfiles.wordpress.com site as a meeting place to discuss their
attempts to destroy Plaintiffs relationships with advertisers. Posts titled The Economic Destruction of
James McGibney & ViaView and Comments from James McGibneys Advertisers detail the
Defendants attempts to ruin Plaintiffs business.
132. On the site, Defendants repeat almost verbatim the same personal and defamatory attacks
against Mr. McGibney that they directed at him from Twitter: CheaterVille is a revenge porn site; Mr.
McGibney is a pedophile; Mr. McGibney has a fake degree; Mr. McGibney is engaged in extortion.
133. Mr. McGibney earned a Bachelor's degree from Chadwick University while deployed
overseas as a United States Marine. Chadwick University was established in 1989, licensed and
approved by the state of Alabama, and offered accredited undergraduate and graduate degree programs
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 27
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
25
26
27
28

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.
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
apprehended when she logged into a phony BVFiles site thinking it was hers, and her IP address was
captured. That IP address resolved to one known to be used by Lipton and @OccupyRebellion (which
later changed its name to @MissAnonNews).
137. The BVFiles website repeatedly states that they use the twitter account @BV_Truth.
That account, on information and belief, belongs to Retzlaff, but is used by the Rauhauser, Lipton and
Doe Defendants 1 through 5.
138. Defendant Retzlaff is also an administrator of the bvfiles.wordpress.com site.
139. On information and belief, Defendant Rauhauser is an administrator of the
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.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 28
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
25
26
27
28

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
make contact with them via Facebook, email, twitter or any other way that you can think of to let them
know that, yes, there is something that can be done about this problem and we have the resources and
willingness to help them! (bold in the original)
145. Most posts on BVFiles have the parenthesis (who we dont like) after each mention of
Mr. McGibney. Thus, by their own admission, defendants are acting in concert with malice, spite and ill
will towards Mr. McGibney.
146. On March 12, 2014, BVFiles listed the name of each board member of ViaView with a
notation of whether they were doxed and reported yet, and if they were not, the post promised to do so
soon. As a result, the minor children of at least one of these board members have been publicly
attacked. One such attack falsely stated, Nick the prick lives with his whore plastic wife at [location
redacted] who has a whore teenage daughter who fucks her father.
147. Another March 12, 2014 post is titled with the defamation: James McGibney is a
criminal. It is a re-post of an earlier post, supposedly for all the new readers, and it falsely states that
Mr. McGibney has a fake diploma and committed academic fraud. In fact, Mr. McGibney has his
Masters Degree from Boston University and attended Harvard Business School for his Executive
Education.
148. The site further states that Boston University is conducting an academic fraud
investigation. Representatives of Boston University have confirmed to Mr. McGibney that this is not
true.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 29
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
25
26
27
28

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.
155. Several more posts falsely state Mr. McGibney has a fake college degree.
156. One post is simply titled CheaterVille is a Revenge Porn Website.
157. Another post queries: Is James McGibney a Pedophile? and comes to the conclusion
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
multiple entries each day. It is clear that a lot of thought, effort and energy goes into maintaining a site
dedicated to trying to destroy plaintiffs life and business. While this is a sad and pathetic use of a
human beings time, it is the reality of this case. This conduct must stop. Accordingly, we sue.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Tortious Interference With Contractual Relations
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
constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs had valid contracts with multiple Internet advertising companies
and with celebrity sponsors of BullyVille.
161. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants formed an
agreement to work together in order to induce a breach or disruption of Plaintiffs contracts with
advertisers.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 30
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
25
26
27
28

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.
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
Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage
166. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants had actual or
constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs had stable business relationships with multiple Internet
advertising companies and celebrity sponsors.
167. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants intended to
induce a disruption of Plaintiffs business relationships with advertisers, and to damage the prospect of
future relationships with new sponsors and advertisers.
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
with their business relationships, 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.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 31
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
25
26
27
28

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Mr. McGibney)
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
has suffered general and special damages including, without limitation, harm to Mr. McGibneys
reputation, emotional distress, lost earnings, and other pecuniary loss, all of which are in excess of
$75,000.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defamation (against Mr. McGibney)
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,
71, 107-112, 129, 132, 144, 147, 150-152, and 155-157 of this Complaint are false and have a natural
tendency to injure the reputation and financial interests of Plaintiffs.
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
community. Revenge porn is synonymous with extortion, with the exploitation of children and
vulnerable communities, with unlawful computer hacking, and is also a crime in many jurisdictions.
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.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 32
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
25
26
27
28

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.
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.
183. Mr. McGibney is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that even though he is
not a public official or public figure (and thus a showing of actual malice is not required by the
First Amendment), that Defendants nevertheless made the aforementioned statements either knowing
they were false or in reckless disregard of the truth and with actual malice, hatred and ill will.
184. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct alleged herein, Mr. McGibney
has suffered general and special damages including, without limitation, harm to his reputation,
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Public Disclosure of Private Facts Invasion of Privacy (against Mr. McGibney)
186. Defendants publication of Mr. McGibneys personal details, including the name of his
wife and his home address, constituted a public disclosure of private facts and was highly offensive and
objectionable, judged by the standard of a reasonable person. None of the defendants postings at issue
constitute opinions that are protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Instead, the Defendants postings are in fact verbal acts that are specifically intended to harass,
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 possible to ViaView, Inc.
067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 33
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
25
26
27
28

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
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.
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
Plaintiffs request that this court:
a. declare that Defendants have tortuously interfered with Plaintiffs contractual relations and/or
prospective economic advantage;
b. preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from continuing to interfere with Plaintiffs
contractual relations and/or prospective economic advantage, including, but not limited to
taking bvfiles.wordpress.com offline;
c. award Plaintiffs general damages according to proof at trial;
d. award Plaintiffs special damages according to proof at trial;
e. award Plaintiffs exemplary damages;
f. award Plaintiffs attorneys fees and court costs where appropriate;
g. grant Plaintiffs any other relief the court deems just, equitable and proper.

Dated: 17 March 2014 LAW OFFICES OF JAY LEIDERMAN

067-270669-14

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Page 34
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
25
26
27
28

By:___/s/_Jay Leiderman_________________
Jason S. Leiderman
JAMES MCGIBNEY
VIAVIEW, INC

067-270669-14

EXHIBIT 2

067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 1
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
25
26
27
28

JASON S. LEIDERMAN, SBN 203336
jay@criminal-lawyer.me
Tel: 805-654-0200
Fax: 805-654-0280

JAMES MCGIBNEY
VIAVIEW, INC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMES MCGIBNEY, an individual, and
VIAVIEW, INC, a corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THOMAS RETZLAFF, an individual,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS;
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE;
(3) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
(4) DEFAMATION;
(5) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE INVASION OF
PRIVACY

Plaintiffs James McGibney (Mr. McGibney), an individual, and ViaView, Inc. (ViaView), a
corporation (collectively, Plaintiffs), set forth the following causes of action against Defendant
Thomas Retzlaff (Retzlaff), and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Beginning in October 2013 and continuing through the present, Defendant has relentlessly
harassed, defamed, cyber-stalked and invaded the privacy of Mr. McGibney, in a deliberate effort to
emotionally harm him and financially damage his business, ViaView, Inc. In addition to committing
relentless personal attacks which included threats of violence, Defendant carried out a coordinated effort
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 2
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
25
26
27
28

to ruin Plaintiffs relationships with advertisers and sponsors, costing Mr. McGibney and ViaView
thousands of dollars of revenue. 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
Las Vegas, Nevada. ViaView is the owner and operator of the popular websites
http://www.bullyville.com (BullyVille), http://www.karmaville.com (KarmaVille),
http://www.slingerville.com (SlingerVille), http://www.cupidville.com (CupidVille) and
http://www.cheaterville.com (CheaterVille).
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
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, as the parties in this case
are completely diverse and the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of
$75,000. Further, the Court has pendent and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged
herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
VENUE
6. A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims sued upon herein occurred in San Jose,
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. McGibneys residence and domicile were in San Jose, California.
Indeed, he published Mr. McGibneys San Jose address.
9. On information and belief, Retzlaff knew Plaintiff ViaView was based on San Jose, California.
10. On information and belief, Retzlaff intentionally directed his conduct in order to cause harm to
Plaintiffs interests in San Jose.
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 3
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
25
26
27
28

11. 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
I. Plaintiffs Operate Popular Anti-Bullying Websites BullyVille and CheaterVille.
12. Mr. McGibney and his business ViaView operate the websites BullyVille 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.
14. Like many Internet-based businesses, the primary revenue source for the Websites comes from
advertisers.
15. All ViaView sites average approximately one million individual and unique user hits per month.
16. Plaintiffs are and were at all times relevant to this suit parties to numerous contracts with
advertisers, including but not limited to:
a. Spokeo.com
b. Lijit.com
c. Advertise.com
d. Godaddy.com
e. Digit covers
17. Combined advertising revenue lost as the result of defendants conduct exceeds $19,300 per
month. This loss does not include other losses described herein. The calculations of loss for the effect
upon other advertisers that would have been drawn to the sites, or from the loss of clicks toward
advertisers that have remained, attributable directly to the direct harassment of Mr. McGibney or the
harassment of celebrity spokespeople described in detail herein, has ratcheted up the loss to at least
$250,000.00 already, and that amount grows each day.
18. Prior to Retzlaffs conduct complained of herein, Plaintiffs enjoyed a good working relationship
with his advertisers listed in paragraph 11 and most advertisers had been doing business with ViaView
continuously for two or more years. Visits to his site were growing and he had no problems with
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 4
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
25
26
27
28

celebrity spokespersons wanting to distance themselves from his websites. Rather, it was quite the
opposite: many high profile celebrities have supported BullyVille over the years.
19. Plaintiff Mr. McGibney vigorously goes after owners, operators and purveyors of revenge porn
websites with the intent of shuttering those websites. Wikipedia has a good definition of revenge
porn. It states: Revenge porn is sexually explicit media that is publicly shared online without the
consent of the pictured individual. [] Revenge porn is typically uploaded by ex-partners or hackers.
Many of the images are selfies which are taken by the subject of the photo. The images are often
accompanied by personal information, including the pictured individuals full name, links to Facebook
and social media profiles or addresses.
20. Revenge porn is now illegal 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.
II. Retzlaffs Campaign of Harassment of, Defamation of, and Interference With Plaintiffs
Business.
21. 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.
22. As a result, a number of women victimized by these sites, and Retzlaffs conduct, have filed
multiple lawsuits and restraining orders against Retzlaff in Texas.
23. Defendant Retzlaff is also a convicted felon, having been imprisoned from 1998 through 2004,
for sexual assault, burglary and unlawful possession for a weapon.
24. Once Mr. McGibney successfully shut down a few of these websites, including
ISANYONEUP.COM, he immediately became a target and obsession for Retzlaff.
25. Beginning in late October 2013, Retzlaff began targeting Plaintiffs using a vast array of social
media accounts, across many different platforms, using many different aliases. These aliases,
colloquially referred to as sock puppets or socks, were intended to hide Retzlaffs true identity.
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 5
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
25
26
27
28

They had the further purpose of creating the illusion of broad support for Retzlaffs extreme views while
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;
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;
m. The Twitter account @Klansmann; and
n. E-mail alias Dean Allen: deanallen5634@outlook.com.
27. Plaintiffs have taken numerous steps to confirm that it is Retzlaff behind each alias or sock
listed herein, including but not limited to lawfully tracking internet protocol addresses, mac addresses
1

and matching email addresses between accounts. Mr. Retzlaff does not take significant steps to conceal
his identity online besides using multiple names and accounts and a less-than-stable VPN
2
connection.
Plaintiff is certain he can prove that all accounts complained of herein belong to Retzlaff.

1
Internet 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
users traffic and routing it through a separate IP address.
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 6
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
25
26
27
28

28. Plaintiffs reasonably anticipate that Retzlaff will continue to create multiple aliases to harass,
stalk, 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 one has shot them
fools [Mr. McGibney] yet. lots of crazy ppl in the world off their meds
30. The @MrTexxxan account has since been suspended by Twitter.
31. 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 of whatnot, you shot [sic] him and take off, dump the gun in Lake Mead or
somewhere and youre go [sic] to go. So go ahead James, keep it up. Sooner or later youre going to
step on the wrong set of toes and youre going to come across a real life tough guy, not an internet tough
guy like a Hunter Moore,
[3]
and its gonna cost you and your family your lives.
32. On November 2, 2013, Retzlaff replied to a comment on BullyVille with his LongJohnSilver
alias Crazy people do not care if they get caught. They will kill you regardless as to the consequences
to them because they are crazy. So while its all well and good that the FBI will eventually catch them
(assuming theyre not one of the 40% who literally get away with murder), it does you little good if
youre the dead guy or the dead family.
33. 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:
a. James McGibney at BullyVille is a lying piece of human garbage.
b. Obviously [a famous single mother]
4
and Bullyvilles allegations are a complete lie.
That f@ggot who runs BullyVille, James McGibney was screaming and hollering

3
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 paragraphs 33 reflect his involvement in that suit.
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 7
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
25
26
27
28

about how he (McGibney) was going to get Jon and all of his supporters and how Jon
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
website Cheaterville.
34. On the same website, at around the same time, Retzlaff posted the name of Mr. McGibneys 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.
36. On November 15, 2013, Retzlaff again used the alias Molly Santucci to directly contact DJ
ASHBA via Facebook. Mr. Ashba, as is described below, is a musician and celebrity spokesperson for
BullyVille. Mr. Ashba was falsely told that CheaterVille is a revenge porn website and Retzlaff, via
sock accounts encouraged DJ ASHBA to remove [his] endorsement and end [his] relationship with
revenge porn BullyVille!!!!!!!!
37. On the same day, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @KellySwift4, tweeted a similar statement to Mr.
Ashba: @DjASHBA Why do you support revenge porn w/ ur BullyVille endorsements? Dont u know
BV runs Cheaterville revenge porn site too?!!
38. Mr. Ashba is a musician with a world-famous rock group. His endorsement created a lot of
interest in BullyVille from advertisers new and old. Plaintiffs estimate he drove hundreds of thousands
of visitors to BullyVille every month.
39. After receiving these and other unwanted messages from Retzlaff, and learning that Retzlaff was
convicted of a felony and served time in prison, Mr. Ashba became fearful for his safety and the safety
of his family.
40. 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.
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 8
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
25
26
27
28

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 advertisers.
42. 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 GLEE 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.
43. Again on November 15, 2013, using Twitter alias @Doxing_McGibney,
5
Retzlaff publicly
tweeted Mr. McGibneys wifes name and their Las Vegas address. Retzlaff further tweeted Mr.
McGibneys San Jose address.
44. On November 15, and November 26, 2013, Retzlaff, using email alias James Smith, sent
harassing e-mails to blogger Adam Steinbaugh. In these e-mails, Retzlaff threatened to release private
information about Mr. McGibney:
a. I happen to work for a large multi-national company overseas, as I mentioned to you
before. As such, my HR Dept. has access to the LexisNexis Accurint LE Plus and
ChoicePoint CLEAR databases so as to fulfill all of our Govt contracts and regulatory
requirements. So if I were to say look up an Adam Steinbaugh or a James McGibney,
I would have access to a whole host of valuable personal, financial, and legal
information. What kind of car they drive, who they bank with, where they have lived
at for the past 20 yrs. (and who with), credit reports, traffic and arrest info, property
transactions, civil cases, any kind of hunting, fishing or drivers licenses, or trade
licenses, and just pages and pages worth of stuff. But not just on them, but on each of
their family members, too! And the family members of those family members.
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

5
Dox is a common Internet abbreviation for documents, usually referring to personal information. Doxing is the act of
publishing such personal information.
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 9
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
25
26
27
28

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?
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 filth.
46. That statement is false and, as with all of the others, it was made with the knowledge of its
falsehood and with actual malice. Neither Mr. McGibney, nor ViaView, charge anyone to remove their
posts from CheaterVille, nor do they allow pornography or any nudity for that matter.
47. On that same date, and through his @mrtexxxan Twitter account, Defendant Retzlaff tweeted It
will be really funny seeing someone post pics of ur wife Christina when she is shopping at Smiths with
ur two kids.
48. On December 6, 2013, Retzlaff, using alias DickHertz, publicly posted on TheDirty.com: James
& Christina McGibney run Bullyville website, a site that HATES Nik and the Dirty. Yet McGibney and
his wife also run revenge porn site CheaterVille! And they also work with scam take Down Hammer
site TruthInPosting.com to charge little girls $199 to remove Cheaterville pics and posts. Talk about
hypocrites! McGibney and his wife scam girls with revenge porn, but they hate Hunter Moore and
Nik!!!
49. This is another complete and intentional lie by Retzlaff. Users of CheaterVille have the option to
login and make their post invisible. Furthermore, CheaterVille adheres to all DMCA takedown requests
within 48 hours.
50. Defendant Retzlaff has claimed on multiple occasions that ViaView and McGibney own
TruthInPosting, which is another false claim. TruthInPosting is an 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.
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 10
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
25
26
27
28

51. 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
there. YOU NEED TO PULL YOUR ADS NOW!!!!
52. Brickhouse Securitys Facebook account replied: 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
you, Brickhouse Security Team.
53. Shortly thereafter, Brickhouse Security pulled all ads from CheaterVille.
54. On December 17, 2013, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @PedoCaptain, publicly tweeted at
BullyVilles Twitter account: @BullyVille I would like to bury a hatchet right in your fucking
damn face. Public info: [address redacted] vegas [sic.] ANYONE?????
55. On or around December 26, 2013, Retzlaff, using Facebook alias Kelly Swift, publicly posted
further accusations on the Facebook page of a BullyVille advertiser that Mr. McGibney was operating a
revenge porn website.
56. On December 30, 2013 and January 7, 2014, Retzlaff, using E-mail alias James Smith, sent Mr.
McGibney harassing e-mails which mentioned advertisers . . . dropping you like a bad habit and
celebrities [who] are runny [sic.] away as fast as they can. It continued: Youve got a business to run
here and putting up crazy, irrational tweets isnt going to make customers comfortable or advertisers
happy.
57. 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?
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.
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 11
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
25
26
27
28

58. 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!
59. 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!!
60. On January 23, 2014, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @BV_Truther, publicly tweeted:
@BullyVille Yes, because getting into a pointless twitter fight w/ someone who has nothing to lose is a
winning strategy for ur family. This was a response to a tweet from BullyVille which read, Strong
people stand up for themselves but the strongest people stand up for others. The header (description)
for @BV_Truther was exposing the truth about Bullyvilles lies by calling HR Depts one at a time and
getting ads on revenge porn sites shut down as soon as they pop up!
61. On February 2, 2014, Retzlaff, posting on an anonymous account, submitted pictures and text
disparaging Mr. McGibney on www.myex.com, an actual revenge porn website.
6
The post was titled
James McGibney is a lying hypocrite who cheats!! and stated that Mr. McGibney extorts money
from young girls and their families over the internet. He is the scum of the earth.
62. This post, which created a web page titled Naked Pics of James A. McGibney Las Vegas
Nevada: MyEx.com appeared in Google search results for James McGibney, meaning that when
someone would search for information about Plaintiff McGibney, this false and defamatory post would
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
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.

6
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.
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 12
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
25
26
27
28

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? BV keeps sending ME death threats
67. On February 9, 2014, Retzlaff, using Twitter alias @BV_Truth, tweeted: I wonder what
happened to all the advertisers on Bullyville & Cheaterville. Several months ago it used to be FILLED
with ads. Shortly thereafter he launched a blog via the wordpress platform which not only continues
to defame and libel Plaintiffs McGibney and ViaView, but is currently being used to viciously attack
numerous board members of ViaView. As one example, Retzlaff created and posted a poll asking
whether James McGibney is a pedophile. This poll was accompanied by statements strongly suggesting
that Mr. McGibney is in fact a pedophile. He is not. Defendant Retzlaff posted a picture of McGibneys
children under the Pedophilia comments with the caption are these children in danger?
68. During this time period (October 2013 present), Retzlaff posted numerous harassing and
defamatory things on a now defunct blog at http://itsabouttruth.wordpress.com. His conduct included
coordinating attacks against McGibney and ViaView with other blog members on ViaView advertisers.
Retzlaff still operates an active blog dedicated to stalking and defaming Mr. McGibney and ViaView.
69. As recently as March 3, 2014, Defendant Retzlaff sent an email to the school principal of one of
the board members children and caused such fear that the child has been removed from the school for
her safety and for the safety of other children. The local Police Department in Orange County were
immediately contacted and an investigation has been launched against Defendant Retzlaff. This is now
the fifth police investigation launched against Thomas Retzlaff across the country (Las Vegas, Northern
and Southern California, San Antonio and Fort Worth.)
70. As a direct result of Retzlaffs harassment of ViaViews board of directors and business partners,
two potential investors in ViaView began to fear for their safety. This fear of Retzlaff caused these two
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 13
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
25
26
27
28

investors, whose potential combined investment amount totaled $250,000, to back out of the pending
deal.
71. The FBI is aware of Retzlaff as numerous complaints have been filed through IC3 and local FBI
offices throughout the Country. His harassing activities have been enjoined by several different courts
in actions with different plaintiffs than are present herein, through multiple restraining orders.
72. The State of Texas has deemed Retzlaff a vexatious litigant.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Tortious Interference With Contractual Relations
73. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 72 of this
Complaint, and reincorporate them by reference as though fully set forth herein.
74. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Retzlaff had actual or
constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs had valid contracts with multiple Internet advertising companies
and with celebrity sponsors of BullyVille.
75. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Retzlaff intended to induce a
breach or disruption of Plaintiffs contracts with advertisers.
76. In order to fulfill his intent to damage Plaintiffs business, Retzlaff repeatedly and systematically
made fraudulent and frivolous complaints to Plaintiffs advertising partners and sponsors.
77. As a direct result of Retzlaffs interference with Plaintiffs contracts and sponsors, those
contracts were breached and/or disrupted.
78. Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as a result of Retzlaffs 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
Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 14
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
25
26
27
28

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 of future
relationships with new sponsors and advertisers.
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
business relationships, 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.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Mr. McGibney)
86. Retzlaffs 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.
87. As a direct and proximate result of Retzlaffs conduct alleged herein, Mr. McGibney has suffered
general and special damages including, without limitation, harm to Mr. McGibneys reputation,
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defamation (against Mr. McGibney)
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 15
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
25
26
27
28

89. Retzlaffs tweets and other social media were read by hundreds or thousands of others on the
Internet, and constitute publication under the law.
90. Retzlaffs 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 Plaintiffs.
91. Specifically, Retzlaffs accusations that CheaterVille and BullyVille are revenge porn websites
were false and defamatory. These false statements had a natural tendency to injure Mr. McGibneys
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
numerous rantings and ramblings about Mr. McGibney. Mr. McGibney is a married father with three
young children. He and his family live in fear, suffer tremendous anxiety and worry. His wife has
suffered severe stress and anxiety about her safety, Mr. McGibneys safety and the safety of their
children.
93. Mr. McGibney is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that even though he is not a
public official or public figure (and thus a showing of actual malice is not required by the First
Amendment), that Retzlaff nevertheless made the aforementioned statements either knowing they were
false or in reckless disregard of the truth and with actual malice, hatred and ill will.
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.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Public Disclosure of Private Facts Invasion of Privacy (against Mr. McGibney)
96. Retzlaffs publication of Mr. McGibneys personal details, including the name of his wife and
his home address, constituted a public disclosure of private facts and was highly offensive and
objectionable, judged by the standard of a reasonable person. None of the defendants postings at issue
constitute opinions that are protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 16
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
25
26
27
28

Instead, the Defendants postings are in fact verbal acts that are specifically intended to harass,
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 possible to ViaView, Inc.
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.
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
99. Plaintiffs have filed a suit in Texas state court, but are in the process of withdrawing that suit.
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.
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
Plaintiffs request that this court:
a. declare that Retzlaff has tortuously interfered with Plaintiffs contractual relations
and/or prospective economic advantage;
b. permanently enjoin Retzlaff from continuing to interfere with Plaintiffs contractual
relations and/or prospective economic advantage;
c. award Plaintiffs general damages according to proof at trial;
d. award Plaintiffs special damages according to proof at trial;
e. award Plaintiffs exemplary damages;
f. award Plaintiffs attorneys fees and court costs where appropriate;
g. grant Plaintiffs any other relief the court deems just, equitable and proper.

067-270669-14

COMPLAINT
Page 17
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
25
26
27
28

Dated: 6 March 2014 LAW OFFICES OF JAY LEIDERMAN

By:___/s/_Jay Leiderman_________________
Jason S. Leiderman
JAMES MCGIBNEY
VIAVIEW, INC

067-270669-14

EXHIBIT 3

067-270669-14
1
From: Jay Leiderman [mailto:jay@criminal-lawyer.me]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:21 PM
To: Jeffrey Dorrell; Phil Meyer
Subject: Neal Rauhauser

Counsel;

I understand that you represent Neal Rauhauser. Attached please find a copy of a lawsuit filed against Mr. Rauhauser in
the Northern District of California. Can you please advise if you intend to represent Mr. Rauhauser in that suit and if you
are authorized to accept service on his behalf? Thank you.

JAY LEIDERMAN
CERTIFIED CRIMINAL LAW SPECIALIST
CALIFORNIA BAR BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
5740 RALSTON STREET SUITE #300
VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93003
TEL: (805) 654 0200
FAX: (805) 654 0280
EMAIL: JAY@CRIMINAL-LAWYER.ME
WEB: WWW.JAYLEIDERMAN.COM
The information contained in this email is a communication from a law firm that may involve attorney-client privilege and is intended for the person or
entity named above. This email (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. 2510 - 2522. It
may contain information that, in addition to being privileged, is confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intended recipient or employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this message, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited adn may subject you to action. If you have received this
transmission in error, please notify me, Jay Leiderman, at (805) 654-0200 ext.24 immediately and return the original message to me. Your steadfast
complaince with respect to the above is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

067-270669-14

EXHIBIT 4

067-270669-14
1
From: Jeffrey Dorrell [mailto:JDorrell@hanszenlaporte.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 10:25 AM
To: Jay Leiderman ; Phil Meyer
Cc: Phil Meyer
Subject: Cause No. 67-270669-14; McGiibney v. Retzlaff; in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Mr. Leiderman:

We have been aware of your filing of a virtually identical federal lawsuit to the referenced Texas suit (on which
your name also appears) since it was filed in the Northern District of California on March 6, 2014. We are not authorized
to accept service of process in your federal suit at this time.

Given the fairly strict and specific provisions of FRCP 11, how many more harassing lawsuits based on the same
allegations do your clients intend to maintain against my client simultaneously in multiple statesnone of which can
exercise personal jurisdiction over my client even according to your own allegations?

]xyy ]xyy ]xyy ]xyy

Jeffrey L. Dorrell
Board Certified, Civil Trial Law
Shareholder and Manager of Litigation
Hanszen Laporte
Houston, Texas 77079
713-522-9444
FAX: 713-524-2580

067-270669-14

EXHIBIT 5

067-270669-14
1
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:41 PM
To: 'Jeffrey Dorrell'; 'Phil Meyer'
Subject: RE: Cause No. 67-270669-14; McGiibney v. Retzlaff; in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Counsel;


Attached please find a copy of a pleading from the Texas suit clarifying who is and is not counsel on that case.

I am gratified that you were aware of the Federal suit. You were then aware that it is Mr. McGibneys intent to dismiss
the Texas suit as soon as possible. Were told this may be accomplished in the next few days.

Well look forward to hearing from Mr. Rauhauser in connection with the suit in Northern California. He is, of course,
welcome to file any motion that is appropriate. If you are to continue as counsel, well look forward to working with
you. If not, be well and thank you for the communication.

JAY LEIDERMAN
TEL: (805) 654 0200
FAX: (805) 654 0280
067-270669-14
, F E B / 2 5 / 2 0 1 4 / T U E 1 2 : 3 8 P M P , 0 0 1 / 0 0 6
MORGAN LAW FIRM
067-270669-14
, F E B / 2 6 / 2 0 1 4 / T U E 1 2 : 4 3 P M P . 0 0 1 / 0 0 6
MORGAN LAW FIRM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2175 North Street, Suite 101
JOEN S. MORGAN, P.C.- neaumont., Texas 77701
8041W CERTIFIED CIVIL TRW L i w
Texas. Board of Legal Speci ali zati on
ANDREA GUIDRY
MA N4GERILEG4LA SSISTA NT
Telephone: ( 409) 239-5984
Fac simile: ( 409) 835-2757
E-Mail: imoreanOismorpanlaw.c oin
aguidrv@ismarRanlaw.c om
February 25, 2014
TELECOPY COVER SHEET
TO: Jason S. Leiderman
Fax No.: ( 805) 654-0280
TO:
Marc S. RandA77a
Fax No.:
( 305) 437-7662
From:
John S. Morgan
Re:
James Mc Gibney and ViaView, Inc . v. Thomas Retzlaff, et al

INSTRUCTIONS: .
Please see attac hed.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS RECEIVING THIS TELECOPY, PLEASE CALL ( 409) 239-5984.
Total number of pages ( inc luding this page) : 6
PRIVILEGED AND CONF1DENTLAL-- The above message may be protec ted by the
attorney/c lient privilege and/or attorney work produc t. If you believe this has been sent to
you in error, DO NOT READ IT. Inform the sender by return e-mail that you have rec eived
the message in error, then DELETE it. Thank you.
067-270669-14
F E B / 2 5 / 2 0 1 4 / T U E 1 2 ; 4 3 P M
P . 0 0 2 / 0 0 6
MORGAN LAW FIRM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOHN S. MORGAN, P.C.
B OA RD CERTIFIED CIV IL nua L A W
Texas B oard of L egal Specinlizarion
ANDREA GUIDRY
OFFICE M A N A GER/ L EGA L A SSIS1A rT
2 175 North Street, Suite 10 1
Beaumont, Texas 7770 1Telephone; (40 9) 2 39-5984
Facsimile: (40 9) 835. 2 757
E-Mail; imorgan(aismorganlaw. com
anuldrgaismornanlaw. com
February 2 4, 2 0 14
Thomas A. Wilder
Tarrant County District Clerk
Justice Center
40 1 W. Belknap
Ft. Worth, Texas 76 196
V ia E-File
Re: Cause No. 0 6 7- 2 70 6 6 9 - 14;James M cGibney and V iaV iew, Inc. v.
Thomas Retziag et al; In the Judicial District Court of
Tarrant County, Texas
Dear Mr. Wilder:
Enclosed please find the following for filing in the above - referenced
matter:
1. Notice ofDesignation ofLead Counsel, and Withdrawal ofOf
Counsel Designations
P lease electronically file these documents among the papers ofthe
Court. I appreciate your attention to this.
067-270669-14
. F E B / 2 5 / 2 0 1 4 / T U E 1 2 : 4 3 P M
P . O D 3 / 0 0 6
Very truly yours,
/s/ Jahn S. Morgan
JO HN S. MO RGAN
AG-/ s
Enclosures
067-270669-14
P . 0 0 4 / 0 0 6
. F E B / 2 5 / 2 0 1 4 / T U E 1 2 : 4 4 P M
Via facsimile (805) 654-0280
Via facsimile (305) 437-7662
bcc: Jason S. Leiderman
Eric J. Lindgren
Law Offices of Jay Leiderman
Marc J. Randazza
Randazza Legal Group
3625 S. ToWn Center Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89135
067-270669-14
FE13/25/2014/TUE 12:44 PM
P. 005/006
No. 067-270669- 14
JAMES MCGIBNEY ANDINTHE DISTRICT COURT OF
VIAVIEW, INC.
VS.
THOMAS RETZLAFF, LORA LUSHER, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
JENNIFER D'ALESSANDRO, NEAL
RAUHAUSE R., MIS SANO NNEWS;
JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE
DOE 3, JANE DoE 4AND JANE DOE 5 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF DESIGNATIONOF MORGANLAW FIRM AS LEAD COUNSEL, AND
WITHDRAWAL OF ERRONEOUS OF COUNSEL DESIGNATIONS
Plaintiffs, JAMES MCGIBNEY AND VIAVIEW, INC., file this Notice of
Designation of Morgan Law Firm as Lead Counsel, and WithdraWal of
Erroneous Of Counsel Designations, and would show the following:
1,Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 8, Plaintiffs designate the Morgan Law
Firm, through John S. Morgan, as the Attorney in Charge, and as the only
law firm representing the Plaintiffs in this matter.
2.Plaintiffs Original Petition erroneously included "Of Counsel"
designations for Law Offices of Jay Leiderman and Randazza Legal
Group. These Of Counsel designations were clone erroneously and without
authority, due to a communication misunderstanding. Plaintiffs' counsel
accepts responsibility for any inconvenience that these erroneous Of
1
067-270669-14
E E B / 2 5 / 2 0 1 4 / T U E 1 2 : 4 4 P M
P . 0 0 6/ 0 0 6
Counsel designations may have caused. P laintiffs hereby state that the
Law, Offices of Jay Leiclerman and Randazza Legal Group are not serving
as Of Counsel to the P laintiffs in this -case. T hese law firms are not
enrolled as co-counsel for the P laintiffs, and these law firms have no
responsibilities as attorneys for the P laintiffs in this cause of action,
JOHNORGAN
T B A# 4 4 74 75
M organ'Law Firm
2 1 75 North Street, Ste. 1 0 1
B eaumont, T exas 7770 1
(4 0 9) 2 39-5 984
(4 0 9) 835 -2 75 7 facsimile
jmormAsmorganlaw.com
Attorney for P laintiffs
2
067-270669-14

EXHIBIT 6

067-270669-14
Within three hours of our filing the foregoing motion, plaintiffs attempted to nonsuit their claims to avoid the inevitable,
unfavorable judicial determination of the merits, the required dismissal with prejudice, and mandatory sanctions. If Mr. Morgan acted
without authority in bringing the Texas suit, or failed to act as he was instructed in dismissing the Texas suit sooner, then your clients
may have a cause of action against Mr. Morgan for breach of his fiduciary duty as their agent, or for legal malpractice. That is
between your clients and Mr. Morgan, and does not concern us. We are concerned only with the fact that Mr. Morgans actions as
plaintiffs agent bind his principalsyour clientsto the consequences.
Your clients' liability for Mr. Rauhausers attorneys fees cannot be purged by nonsuiting plaintiffs' frivolous and
unsupported claims after those attorneys fees have already been incurred. See Scott & White Memorial Hospital v. Schexnider, 940
S.W.2d 594, 595 (Tex. 1996); see also Epps v. Fowler, 351 S.W.3d 862, 871-72 (Tex. 2011); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315
S.W.3d 860, 863 (Tex. 2010). The Texas Supreme Court has often expressed its disapproval of a nonsuit by a calculating plaintiff
[who] voluntarily withdraws his complaint to escape a disfavorable judicial determination on the merits. See Epps v. Fowler,
351 S.W.3d 862, 869-70 (Tex. 2011), citing Dean v. Riser, 240 F.3d 505, 510 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Marquart v. Lodge 837, Intl
Assn of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 26 F.3d 842, 852 (8th Cir. 1994)); see also In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257,
260 (Tex. 2008); In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35, 36 (Tex. 1997); Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853, 854 (Tex. 1995).
My client has every intention of seeking compensation for the legal fees he incurred in defending your clients groundless
Texas suit.
Warm regards,
/s/
J effrey L. Dorrell
Board Certified, Civil Trial Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Partner, Shareholder, and Manager of Litigation
Hanszen Laporte, LLP
713-522-9444
FAX: 713-524-2580

On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Jay Leiderman <jay@criminal-lawyer.me> wrote:
Counsel;


Attached please find a copy of a pleading from the Texas suit clarifying who is and is not counsel on that case.

I am gratified that you were aware of the Federal suit. You were then aware that it is Mr. McGibneys intent to dismiss the
Texas suit as soon as possible. Were told this may be accomplished in the next few days.

Well look forward to hearing from Mr. Rauhauser in connection with the suit in Northern California. He is, of course, welcome
to file any motion that is appropriate. If you are to continue as counsel, well look forward to working with you. If not, be well
and thank you for the communication.

JAY LEIDERMAN
067-270669-14
TEL: (805) 654 0200
FAX: (805) 654 0280
The information contained in this email is a communication from a law firm that may involve attorney-client privilege and is intended for the person or entity named
above. This email (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. 2510 - 2522. It may contain information
that, in addition to being privileged, is confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message, in whole or in
part, is strictly prohibited adn may subject you to action. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me, Jay Leiderman, at (805) 654-0200 ext.24
immediately and return the original message to me. Your steadfast complaince with respect to the above is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
067-270669-14

EXHIBIT 7

067-270669-14
1
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 6:04 AM
To: Jay Leiderman
Cc: Phil Meyer; Ron Page
Subject: No. 67-270669-14; McGiibney v. Retzlaff; in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Counsel:

I do not agree that my knowledge of the existence of two virtually identical lawsuits filed by your clients against Mr. Rauhauser
in different jurisdictions is tantamount to being aware that it was Mr. McGibneys intent to dismiss the Texas suit as soon as
possible. In fact, plaintiffs actions were precisely to the contrary. I am prepared to demonstrate this in the 67th District Court
in a motion to be filed shortly.

If it had been your clients' intent to nonsuit the Texas case, they could obviously have done this immediately upon your filing
the federal suit in California on March 6, 2014or even earlier when the intent to file suit in federal court in California was
first formed. Instead, plaintiffs allowed Mr. Rauhauser to incur the cost of hiring counsel to research and draft a special
appearance, original answer, and counterclaim for almost a monthfinally filing these on March 17, 2014. Even then, the next
filing by plaintiffs on March 19, 201413 days after filing the federal suit in Californiawas NOT a nonsuit of the
referenced Texas case but, instead, a clear reaffirmation that your clients intended to proceed with the Texas lawsuit. Here is
what was filed:

The Undersigned [Morgan] is concerned disclosure of this [mysteriously undisclosed] information could be potentially
harmful to the Plaintiffs as they pursue this cause of action."

Stating an intent to "pursue this cause of action is directly repugnant to your self-serving claim at 5:40 PM on March 20, 2014,
that your clients always intended "to dismiss the Texas suit as soon as possible. Therefore, Mr. Rauhauser was obliged
to continue incurring legal fees to defend himself by having his attorneys research, draft, file, and serve his Motion to Dismiss
Under the Citizen Participation Act. That statute, as you may know, requires dismissal of claims with prejudice, award of
attorneys fees, court costs, and other expenses, as well as a mandatory award of sanctions "sufficient to deter plaintiffs from
filing other such suits. I assume you already have this, but attached is what we filed yesterday:

067-270669-14

EXHIBIT 8

067-270669-14
1
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:59 PM
To: 'Jeffrey Dorrell'
Subject: RE: No. 67-270669-14; McGiibney v. Retzlaff; in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Mr. Dorell;

As you are now clearly aware, I am not counsel on the Texas suit nor am I privy to what has transpired in that suit. If
there is something you feel is relevant to me that you would like me to review, please send it along and Ill be happy to
review it.

When you stated that you were aware of the federal suit I filed I presumed you read the suit. Both the complaint and
the amended complaint state clearly that Plaintiff was in the process of withdrawing the Texas suit. Armed with this
knowledge, you ran into court to file pleadings on behalf of a person that was not even served in a case set to be
dismissed. You appear to me to be deliberately attempting to run up legal fees in a moot matter. I have no doubt that
any judge in any court in this land will see that.

It further appears that you cant take dismissed for an answer. Accordingly, I wish you good luck in that endeavor and
I bid you farewell unless you are to be counsel on the federal suit.
JAY LEIDERMAN
TEL: (805) 654 0200
FAX: (805) 654 0280
067-270669-14

EXHIBIT 9

067-270669-14
1
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 1:28 PM
To: Jay Leiderman
Subject: No. 67-270669-14; McGibney v. Retzlaff; in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Counsel:

There is no process of withdrawing a Texas suit. It takes less than 5 minutes to draft and file a Notice of
Nonsuit, which is effective immediately upon filing. Your clients did not file a nonsuit for over 4 weeks (although they
did draft and file several other things). At the same time, your clients declared their intention to continue prosecuting
the suit to the very Texas judge in whose court your clients frivolous claims were pending. Thus, my client was obliged
to defend himself.

It was not until my client filed a dispositive motion that your clients nonsuited on March 20, 2014. All the e-
mails in the world cannot change this chronology. It speaks for itself.

]xyy ]xyy ]xyy ]xyy

Jeffrey L. Dorrell
Board Certified, Civil Trial Law
Shareholder and Manager of Litigation
Hanszen Laporte
713-522-9444
FAX: 713-524-2580

067-270669-14

James McGibney and ViaView, Inc.'s Reply To Defendant Rauhauser's Motion To Dismiss Under The Citizen Participation Act - 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

James McGibney and ViaView, Inc.'s Reply To Defendant Rauhauser's Motion To Dismiss Under The Citizen Participation Act - 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JAMES MCGIBNEY AND VIAVIEW, INC.

REPLY TO DEFENDANT NEAL RAUHAUSERS MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER THE

James Mc Gibney and ViaView, Inc . v. Thomas Retzlaff, et al

You might also like