The strange case of Jonathan Rees

[factchecker2]

There are a lot of unanswered questions about Jonathan Rees. I'm starting this thread in the hope that Rees himself will answer the questions posted here, especially since his website is devoid of specifics about his background.

 

1. Where did Rees go to school?

 

2. Were does Jonathan Rees work? Where did he accomplish what he claims on his website: "Rees has over twenty (20) years experience in upper business management and government affairs."

 

3. Why did Rees send a vulgar email to every judge on the DC Superior Court? What did that email say? (See http://mishpat.net/cyberlaw/archive/update15.shtml )

 

4. Why were Rees' two YahooGroups, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jonathan_rees and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcward3 deleted?

 

This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are a lot more unanswered questions about Rees.

[godfather]

I cannot answer where Rees went to school as I do not know and never asked.

 

Where Rees works is well known to many in the press.

 

Rees never spammed judges by email and it was not the candidate Rees. What happened was somebody erected a website despicting one of the judge as a drunk passed out in his livingroom, another judge at the court saw it and she was the one who passed it around to another judge. The judge who was being picked on had (that) that Rees arrested for disrepecting a judge but the US Attorney refused to presecute the case based upon what happened was a protected constitutional right and not a crime and to allow judges to arrest people for insulting them outside the courthouse would undue our constitutional rights to free speech. You need to do a better job of reporting things.

 

Why Rees deleted his yahoo rooms I do not know and is that the end of the world azz wipe?

 

 

There are a lot of unanswered questions about Jonathan Rees. I\'m starting this thread in the hope that Rees himself will answer the questions posted here, especially since his website is devoid of specifics about his background.

 

1. Where did Rees go to school?

 

2. Were does Jonathan Rees work? Where did he accomplish what he claims on his website: \"Rees has over twenty (20) years experience in upper business management and government affairs.\"

 

3. Why did Rees send a vulgar email to every judge on the DC Superior Court? What did that email say? (See http://mishpat.net/cyberlaw/archive/update15.shtml )

 

4. Why were Rees\' two YahooGroups, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jonatha_rees and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcward3 deleted?

 

This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are a lot more unanswered questions about Rees.

[factchecker2]

Uh huh. Right. Like anyone buys that.

 

As I said, let's hear from Jonathan Rees himself. All of these questions remain unanswered. Saying, "where Rees works is well known to many in the press" is the same as saying, "Rees can't say where he's worked because he doesn't want anyone to know."

 

I know that your description of what Rees sent to every judge on the DC Superior Court is simply and totally false. The American Lawyer article, which has some more details about this very odd thing that Rees did, has already been posted on DC Pages and elsewhere. Did you forget? Or where you hoping that everyone else would forget about that?

 

Anyway, the challenge remains: Jonathan Rees, under your own name -- answer these very basic questions about your background.

 

 

 

I cannot answer where Rees went to school as I do not know and never asked.

 

Where Rees works is well known to many in the press.

 

Rees never spammed judges by email and it was not the candidate Rees. What happened was somebody erected a website despicting one of the judge as a drunk passed out in his livingroom, another judge at the court saw it and she was the one who passed it around to another judge. The judge who was being picked on had (that) that Rees arrested for disrepecting a judge but the US Attorney refused to presecute the case based upon what happened was a protected constitutional right and not a crime and to allow judges to arrest people for insulting them outside the courthouse would undue our constitutional rights to free speech. You need to do a better job of reporting things.

 

Why Rees deleted his yahoo rooms I do not know and is that the end of the world azz wipe?

[truthseeker]

 

I know that your description of what Rees sent to every judge on the DC Superior Court is simply and totally false. The American Lawyer article, which has some more details about this very odd thing that Rees did, has already been posted on DC Pages and elsewhere. Did you forget? Or where you hoping that everyone else would forget about that?

 

 

He DOES seem to have a problem with judges, doesn't he?

 

http://dcwatch.com/election2006/rees02.htm

 

I suppose he'll say that DCWatch faked that one, too. Screenshot in hand, so don't bother deleting it.

Edited February 13, 2006 by truthseeker

[factchecker2]

There was an amazing thread about Rees yesterday (and today) on DCist: http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/02/13/professionalism.php

 

Rees was asked a lot of questions, including where he works and where he went to school. Rees vaguely fudged the question about his employment history, but entirely ducked --again-- the questions about where he went to school.

 

But even the answer that Rees gave to the work experience question was unclear and raised more questions than it answered. Here is what Rees wrote (which is taken word-for-word from other posts he's made):

 

I work now for a dental care provider to nursing homes known as Institutional Dental Care, I am the administrator at PG County Hospital of its dental clinic and I sit on the board of directors of Los Gellegos Foods. Prior to that, I worked for 9 years for the Dutch based food giant Royal Ahold which owns Giant Foods and others. I came to DC with an offer from the World Bank to manage its housing facility known as The Concordia which is on NH & M.

 

and

 

I am not a dental techinician but a manager of around 22 dental clinics which is a bit up there and far far above a blogger.

 

Rees manages "about 22 dental clinics"? I don't buy that. Also Rees' statement about his job experience doesn't jive with what he's posted on his own campaign website (again, vague as that is):

Rees has over twenty (20) years experience in upper business management and government affairs.

 

Does what Rees does for a living in any way resemble "upper business management?" And where is his "government affaris" experience? But wait! Here's part of a job application letter that Rees posted on the Internet, describing his governmental affairs experience. Does any of this make sense to anyone:

 

My experience in the legal field has been first six years as a Litigation Paralegal, three years as a Litigation Case Manager and then as a Law Office/Legal Department Manager whereby at each position, I did what most medium to large law firms, government agencies and corporate legal departments expect of their employee in said positions.

 

I have to offer any prospective employer over ten (10) years experience in Legal Office Management consisting of but not limited to Accounting, Customer Service, Marketing, Human Resource Management, Mailroom Operations, Meeting Planning, Policy and Procedures, Purchasing, Vendor Relations, Legal/Legislative Research and Writing, Paralegal Training, Records and Document Management, Litigation Case Management, etcetera within the corporate, government and private law firm legal environments.

 

Also, over the past ten (10) years, I have held down part-time (evenings & weekend) work with various law firms in DC: E.G. Larry Williams & Associates, Kolp & Associates, Nath & Associates, etcetera.

 

At the current time, I am employed by the Government of Puerto Rico as the [Office Manager for the Federal Office of Legal & Legislative Affairs] as a governor's appointee on a term basis whereby I oversee the lobbying of the federal government on all levels which most states do to obtain federal funds, affect pending legislation or to challenge legal and legislative issues as well as challenge the actions of other states and corporate activities within a state before the various administrative agencies and courts of law, but I am looking to achieve upward mobility and that is why I am submitting my Résumé.

 

(Post at http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:lPouyP...us&ct=clnk&cd=1 or http://Use Full URL address/8wb9r )

 

Who describes their work experience as "etcetera"? Who says they worked in "Legal Office Management" doing, among other things, "Customer Service?"

 

Maybe Rees isn't even sure of his own education and work background.

[aglue]

There was an amazing thread about Rees yesterday (and today) on DCist: http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/02/13/professionalism.php

 

Rees was asked a lot of questions, including where he works and where he went to school. Rees vaguely fudged the question about his employment history, but entirely ducked --again-- the questions about where he went to school.

 

But even the answer that Rees gave to the work experience question was unclear and raised more questions than it answered. Here is what Rees wrote (which is taken word-for-word from other posts he's made):

 

I work now for a dental care provider to nursing homes known as Institutional Dental Care, I am the administrator at PG County Hospital of its dental clinic and I sit on the board of directors of Los Gellegos Foods. Prior to that, I worked for 9 years for the Dutch based food giant Royal Ahold which owns Giant Foods and others. I came to DC with an offer from the World Bank to manage its housing facility known as The Concordia which is on NH & M.

 

and

 

I am not a dental techinician but a manager of around 22 dental clinics which is a bit up there and far far above a blogger.

 

Rees manages "about 22 dental clinics"? I don't buy that. Also Rees' statement about his job experience doesn't jive with what he's posted on his own campaign website (again, vague as that is):

Rees has over twenty (20) years experience in upper business management and government affairs.

 

Does what Rees does for a living in any way resemble "upper business management?" And where is his "government affaris" experience? But wait! Here's part of a job application letter that Rees posted on the Internet, describing his governmental affairs experience. Does any of this make sense to anyone:

 

My experience in the legal field has been first six years as a Litigation Paralegal, three years as a Litigation Case Manager and then as a Law Office/Legal Department Manager whereby at each position, I did what most medium to large law firms, government agencies and corporate legal departments expect of their employee in said positions.

 

I have to offer any prospective employer over ten (10) years experience in Legal Office Management consisting of but not limited to Accounting, Customer Service, Marketing, Human Resource Management, Mailroom Operations, Meeting Planning, Policy and Procedures, Purchasing, Vendor Relations, Legal/Legislative Research and Writing, Paralegal Training, Records and Document Management, Litigation Case Management, etcetera within the corporate, government and private law firm legal environments.

 

Also, over the past ten (10) years, I have held down part-time (evenings & weekend) work with various law firms in DC: E.G. Larry Williams & Associates, Kolp & Associates, Nath & Associates, etcetera.

 

At the current time, I am employed by the Government of Puerto Rico as the [Office Manager for the Federal Office of Legal & Legislative Affairs] as a governor's appointee on a term basis whereby I oversee the lobbying of the federal government on all levels which most states do to obtain federal funds, affect pending legislation or to challenge legal and legislative issues as well as challenge the actions of other states and corporate activities within a state before the various administrative agencies and courts of law, but I am looking to achieve upward mobility and that is why I am submitting my Résumé.

 

(Post at http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:lPouyP...us&ct=clnk&cd=1 or http://Use Full URL address/8wb9r )

 

Who describes their work experience as "etcetera"? Who says they worked in "Legal Office Management" doing, among other things, "Customer Service?"

 

Maybe Rees isn't even sure of his own education and work background.

 

 

 

What Rees really wanted to say:

 

"I am currently erecting a campaign to run for public office whereby I will reduce taxes to zero and achieve fiscal liquidity in the legal governmental affairs and corporate dental structures, etc. etc., Also, I love women."

 

hah! Rees is a comic GOD...

[Guest Sleazy Sam]

It is a proven fact that SAM BROOKS has finally admitted despite all the claims here on DC Pages and elsewhere that he was not involved in any smear campaign that he was!

 

Brooks admitted it to a writer with the Washington Post which makes all claims by him, Bfrank, Truthseeker, Golden Girl a big lie but then again, these phony names belongs to Sam Brooks, Tamela Gordon, John Capozzi and others all who are supporters of Sam Brooks and gave money to his campaign if you look at the official records down at the DC Office of Campaign Finance.

 

These fags fooled all of you but hopefully you will finally see the truth.

 

Look at what Sam Brooks said to the post and you judge, did he or did he not admit to being involved in a smear campaign (pie throwing)!

 

I REST MY CASE...BROOKS IS GUILTY OF AN INTERNET SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST REES AND OTHER CANDIDATES!

 

Let me quote Sam Brooks per the Post article:

 

Sam says he will put down his lemon and vanilla pies if Rees and the others put down theirs.

 

 

HOW MUCH MORE OF AN ADMISSION TO MUDSLINGING BY BROOKS CAN YOU GET?

 

 

READ THIS AGAIN AND SEE THE PROOF THAT SAM BROOKS ADMITS HE WAS THE ORIGINAL MUDSLINGER!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcwire/2006...ment_typ_1.html

[truthseeker]

Oh, honestly. That WaPo blog post demonstrates nothing of the sort. Obviously.

 

Of course, the IP addresses linking Stewart, Rees, Etc etc actually DO demonstrate who's been posting under aliases and what they've been posting. Check out "Rees Multiple Aliast Disorder" posts in the archives of this board. And that, " Mr. Stewart", is what genuine proof looks like. try to hold yourself to even some basic standard of evidence. This is no more than a junior high school debate team achieves on a daily basis...see if you can match that relatively low ethical and intellectual standard.

 

It is a proven fact that SAM BROOKS has finally admitted despite all the claims here on DC Pages and elsewhere that he was not involved in any smear campaign that he was!

 

Brooks admitted it to a writer with the Washington Post which makes all claims by him, Bfrank, Truthseeker, Golden Girl a big lie but then again, these phony names belongs to Sam Brooks, Tamela Gordon, John Capozzi and others all who are supporters of Sam Brooks and gave money to his campaign if you look at the official records down at the DC Office of Campaign Finance.

 

These fags fooled all of you but hopefully you will finally see the truth.

 

Look at what Sam Brooks said to the post and you judge, did he or did he not admit to being involved in a smear campaign (pie throwing)!

 

I REST MY CASE...BROOKS IS GUILTY OF AN INTERNET SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST REES AND OTHER CANDIDATES!

 

Let me quote Sam Brooks per the Post article:

 

Sam says he will put down his lemon and vanilla pies if Rees and the others put down theirs.

HOW MUCH MORE OF AN ADMISSION TO MUDSLINGING BY BROOKS CAN YOU GET?

READ THIS AGAIN AND SEE THE PROOF THAT SAM BROOKS ADMITS HE WAS THE ORIGINAL MUDSLINGER!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcwire/2006...ment_typ_1.html

[bfrankdc]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gloverpark/m...ge/426?source=1

Ramon Rivera/Stewart20008

4.249.117.132

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MountPleasan...e/5145?source=1

Gloria Gutierres/Stewart20008

4.249.114.126

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tenleytown/m...e/2889?source=1

Roy Stewart

4.249.120.54

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ward3dc/message/88?source=1

4.249.120.71

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ward3dc/message/225?source=1

4.249.120.61

Jonathan Rees

 

B. Frank

 

 

Oh, honestly. That WaPo blog post demonstrates nothing of the sort. Obviously.

 

Of course, the IP addresses linking Stewart, Rees, Etc etc actually DO demonstrate who's been posting under aliases and what they've been posting. Check out "Rees Multiple Aliast Disorder" posts in the archives of this board. And that, " Mr. Stewart", is what genuine proof looks like. try to hold yourself to even some basic standard of evidence. This is no more than a junior high school debate team achieves on a daily basis...see if you can match that relatively low ethical and intellectual standard.

Edited February 20, 2006 by bfrankdc

[Guest Sleazy Sam]

The fact that Brooks admitted to the Washington Post to what he did, I nor anybody else has to prove diddly squat to you morons.

 

What Brooks said was worth its weight in gold and the public will see his statement as an admission of guilt!

 

Let me quote Sam Brooks per the Post article:

 

 

Sam says he will put down his lemon and vanilla pies if Rees and the others put down theirs.

 

 

HOW MUCH MORE OF AN ADMISSION TO MUDSLINGING BY BROOKS CAN YOU GET?

 

 

READ THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL IT FINALLY SINKS IN…BROOKS IS GUILTY OF MUDSLINGING AND HE WILL HAVE TO EAT HIS WORDS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL!

 

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcwire/2006...ment_typ_1.html

[factchecker2]

Where did Jonathan Rees go to school? Rees deleted his resume from his website (though it's been saved and posted), which contained some of that information, but in various places on the Internet he's said either went to college at Columbia University or New York University, and also that he received his MBA from Columbia University. When pressed on this question, Rees has said that he won't reveal that information (the records are sealed, he's said) because other candidates for Ward 3 City Council won't say where they went to school. The other candidates have, in fact, said exactly where they've gone to school.

 

Where somebody went to school is not an indication of how good a City Councilmember they'll be. But refusing to say where you went to school (and offering contradictory information about this) is an issue: It goes to the heart of a candidate's integrity, honesty, and fitness to serve.

 

I though it would be useful to list where the candidates went to school:

 

Mary Cheh: Rutgers University, Douglass College; J.D., Rutgers University; LL.M., Harvard University

 

Sam Brooks: BA, Claremont McKenna College

 

Erik Gaull, BA, Columbia University; MBA, Georgetown University

 

Robert Gordon, BA, Cornell University; MA in Economics, State University of New York

 

Jonathan Rees: Refuses to disclose where he went to school

[grim]

Again checking the Pacer system, Truthseeker...Rees did not send any email to judges. This case you speak of surrounds an internet website despicting a judge Bayly as a drunk watching TV, Bayly took offense to it, ordered Rees to be charged for insulting a judge but the US Attorney refused to charge Rees claiming it would violate his rights to free speech and aother judge agreed and the case was kicked out.

 

You guys need to subscribe to Pacer.

 

 

There are a lot of unanswered questions about Jonathan Rees. I\'m starting this thread in the hope that Rees himself will answer the questions posted here, especially since his website is devoid of specifics about his background.

 

1. Where did Rees go to school?

 

2. Were does Jonathan Rees work? Where did he accomplish what he claims on his website: \"Rees has over twenty (20) years experience in upper business management and government affairs.\"

 

3. Why did Rees send a vulgar email to every judge on the DC Superior Court? What did that email say? (See http://mishpat.net/cyberlaw/archive/update15.shtml )

 

4. Why were Rees\' two YahooGroups, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jonathan_rees and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcward3 deleted?

 

This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are a lot more unanswered questions about Rees.

[bfrankdc]

This is the first time I have gone to the mishpat link cited by factchecker2

 

http://mishpat.net/cyberlaw/archive/update15.shtml

 

and here is what it says:

 

* Contempt for sending an Email? *

On Feb. 10, the entire US D.C. judiciary received an e-mail filled with

vulgarities and aimed at Superior Court Judge John Bayly Jr. The

message revealed that the author was Jonathan Rees. At the time, Judge

Bayly was presiding over Rees' divorce case, which had been going on

for eight years. Bayly ordered that Rees show cause why he should not

be held in contempt for violating a previous judge's 1992 order

prohibiting him additional filings in the divorce matter without

judicial approval.

But in a hearing before Superior Court Judge Michael Rankin, Rankin

decided against prosecuting Rees for the contempt charge because Rees

did not receive sufficient warning that his actions violated the 1992

order. At the hearing, Rankin said any order will put Rees on notice

that any further e-mails to D.C. judges would be grounds for contempt.

But Rees' attorney says that prohibiting his client from communicating

with the judiciary would infringe on Rees' right to free speech.

http://www.lawnewsnet.com/stories/practice...6-1999Jun7.html

 

 

So according to the article, which was taken from the proceedings, it was an email, not a website as specified by "The Grim Reaper".

 

From a Legal Times article on the episode, "Also at the hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Boasberg

said: "This court and the U.S. attorney's office will pursue charges against him if [Rees engages in] this kind of conduct again." The article futher went on to describe Rees's attorney as characterizing the squelching as a potential violation of free speech. Under no circumstances did the US Attorney, [now Judge] James Boasberg, say that it would violate Mr. Rees's free speech. (June 10, 1999 American Lawyer Media, The Legal Intelligencer).

 

I think the Grim Reaper needs to go back and review the facts.

 

B. Frank

 

Again checking the Pacer system, Truthseeker...Rees did not send any email to judges. This case you speak of surrounds an internet website despicting a judge Bayly as a drunk watching TV, Bayly took offense to it, ordered Rees to be charged for insulting a judge but the US Attorney refused to charge Rees claiming it would violate his rights to free speech and aother judge agreed and the case was kicked out.

 

You guys need to subscribe to Pacer.

[grim]

I read the entire text from Pacer.

 

It said Rees created a website that was insulting and somebody emailed a note to all the judges directing them to look at it.

 

At the hearing, Judge Rankin agreed what Rees did was a protected right, there is no evidence that Rees was the one who sent the email to the judges but the Asst US Attorney Boasberg said if it happens again and Rees can be found to be the one who sends it then they would prosecute but sadly, it is a civil matter subject to a fine if found to have been committed.

 

Often the papers do not report things clearly.

 

 

 

 

 

This is the first time I have gone to the mishpat link cited by factchecker2

 

http://mishpat.net/cyberlaw/archive/update15.shtml

 

and here is what it says:

 

* Contempt for sending an Email? *

On Feb. 10, the entire US D.C. judiciary received an e-mail filled with

vulgarities and aimed at Superior Court Judge John Bayly Jr. The

message revealed that the author was Jonathan Rees. At the time, Judge

Bayly was presiding over Rees\' divorce case, which had been going on

for eight years. Bayly ordered that Rees show cause why he should not

be held in contempt for violating a previous judge\'s 1992 order

prohibiting him additional filings in the divorce matter without

judicial approval.

But in a hearing before Superior Court Judge Michael Rankin, Rankin

decided against prosecuting Rees for the contempt charge because Rees

did not receive sufficient warning that his actions violated the 1992

order. At the hearing, Rankin said any order will put Rees on notice

that any further e-mails to D.C. judges would be grounds for contempt.

But Rees\' attorney says that prohibiting his client from communicating

with the judiciary would infringe on Rees\' right to free speech.

http://www.lawnewsnet.com/stories/practice...6-1999Jun7.html

So according to the article, which was taken from the proceedings, it was an email, not a website as specified by \"The Grim Reaper\".

 

From a Legal Times article on the episode, \"Also at the hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Boasberg

said: \"This court and the U.S. attorney\'s office will pursue charges against him if [Rees engages in] this kind of conduct again.\" The article futher went on to describe Rees\'s attorney as characterizing the squelching as a potential violation of free speech. Under no circumstances did the US Attorney, [now Judge] James Boasberg, say that it would violate Mr. Rees\'s free speech. (June 10, 1999 American Lawyer Media, The Legal Intelligencer).

 

I think the Grim Reaper needs to go back and review the facts.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

All one needs to do is look at the headers of an email to determine who the sender was. It's not like it is a Federal secret.

 

I will trust the articles that have actual reporters and links to publications rather than the claims of an anonymous internet poster.

 

B. Frank

 

I read the entire text from Pacer.

 

It said Rees created a website that was insulting and somebody emailed a note to all the judges directing them to look at it.

 

At the hearing, Judge Rankin agreed what Rees did was a protected right, there is no evidence that Rees was the one who sent the email to the judges but the Asst US Attorney Boasberg said if it happens again and Rees can be found to be the one who sends it then they would prosecute but sadly, it is a civil matter subject to a fine if found to have been committed.

 

Often the papers do not report things clearly.

[grim]

That case is open to the public. It is Case No SP-1-98. It is available online or in person.

 

I am quoting from the court records and not a news reporter and you might want to do the same in the future so as to be accurate in all that you say.

 

 

All one needs to do is look at the headers of an email to determine who the sender was. It\'s not like it is a Federal secret.

 

I will trust the articles that have actual reporters and links to publications rather than the claims of an anonymous internet poster.

 

B. Frank

[truthseeker]

That case is open to the public. It is Case No SP-1-98. It is available online or in person.

 

I am quoting from the court records and not a news reporter and you might want to do the same in the future so as to be accurate in all that you say.

 

And of course, this is the ever-popular answer A:

 

"I don't have to provide proof! YOU do the work!"

 

 

AND, as a special ka-razy bonus, Answer E. as well! It has nothing to do with the issue in the previous post, in an attempt to divert attention away from the post that's embarassed him.

[grim]

I do not have that case in front of me but if you use Pacer you can see it up on your screen.

 

 

And of course, this is the ever-popular answer A:

 

\"I don\'t have to provide proof! YOU do the work!\"

AND E. Long, rambling (though this is the short version) rant that has nothing to do with the issue at hand in an attempt to divert attention away from the post that\'s embarassed him. Most posts fall into this category.