bfrankdc

That might be true except a few facts: 1) Mr. Rees's multiple aliases in several Ward 3 Yahoo groups predate any knolwledge I have of the existance of the man. The IP records on Yahoo that haven't been deleted (and cannot be deleted because Mr. Rees and the aliases have been banned from said groups) are facts. They cannot be manipulated, altered or otherwise tampered with; 2) The existence of the jrrees_1955 yahoo profile was made before 2002, which is shown on the profile as the last date of edit. I certainly didn't know of Mr. Rees then. The "jrr_1955" Yahoo profile was lasted edited in 2003. Check the posts on Mt. Pleasant and Adams Morgan Yahoo groups. Interesting the exchanges with Ramon roy Stewart (RRJ/JRR) in those threads. The IP addresses for Ramon Roy Stewart Rivera on those posts from 2002 are the same as the posts from Jonathan R Rees/jrr_1955. Strkingly similar to the events of 2005-2006; 3) The existence of the several law cases cited are in third party legal servers. These are not things that I, or anyone I know, could have hacked and manipulated; 4) The source codes on many of the google results show dates before last summer, and as early as the 1990's. Not things that I could have created or manipulated. With respect to the whole IP address thing, there is a common thread of all of the postings by Mr. Rees and his "supporters" going back to last summer, but before the "proxy IP servers" were utilized. That has been documented on DC Pages (by Luke Wilbur and me), DCist, Yahoo, Craigslist (by Craig newmark), on DCDL.org, and other places where Mr. Rees and "his suporters" have posted. Facts are afacts and undenyable. Indeed, there is a pattern as well even when the proxy IP servers are being used. B. Frank You claim I am intentionally lying. Please specify any or all lies I have posted on this forum. B. Frank

I am curious as to what has been posted here that isn't true? Between me, Truthseeker, factchecker, DCistMartin, Nelson Jacobsen, Golden Girl, etc. there have been links, screen shots and other verifications to contradict the claims made by Mr. Rees and his aliases (and yes, the multi-alias postings have been demonstrated with links as well). So, "Grim Reaper", if you can refute claims made by the above posters by providing links, or other third partify verification, then I am open to it. However, posts with "I heard it somewhere", or other non-proveable means doesn't cut it. In fact, I would say that the 1% of truth falls on Mr. Rees and his aliases by virtue of the refutable education claims, professional claims, marraige claims, children claims, etc. No one cares about a candidate's professional or educational background. People do care about the truth, however. On this front, Mr. Rees has demonstrated to be a less than trustworthy candidate. Who is the real Mr. Jonathan R. Rees? Oh, and where my background, professional affiliations and family are concerned, well, there are no concerns because I am not the one running for office. Even if I were, anything that I would claim to be true would infact be true, and verifiable via Google and other means. B. Frank

You have made two assumptions in this post. Both are false. Try again. B. Frank

For a candidate that is "too conservative" for your tastes, you sure know alot about him, and are finding links and references that I certainlty have never seen. So another case, US vs. Rees...that is five litigations! How many more can we find! B. Frank PS...here is another link to the same web hosting service which shows a "Jonathan Rees & Company" as having been in business since 1979 providing federal filing services for law firms, etc. However, DCRA has no such company on record. http://www.stormpages.com/e/energylaw/ The link provided by the "Grim Reaper" is new to me!

Is that a threat?

But you are forgetting the self named company that has done federal filings since 1979. Of course, that one doesn't show up on the resume. B. Frank

So, Grim Reaper, why did Mr. Rees's letters stop appearing in "The Mail" from DC Watch? B. Frank

Nancy MacWood and Bob Brandon. She doesn't work for him. I guess you don't know her all that well afterall. B. Frank

Um, they are husband and wife. They don't work together but are obviously both politically connected in Ward 3.

See my initial post....the case in question is from 1994. Blanca Reyes. That is three separate cases I have found with Mr. Rees as a litigant, along with the Kolp case. I am sure there are others. No wonder Mr. Rees claims to have such legal experience. So what was the 1991 case? That makes 4! B. Frank

I find it kind of funny that Rees posted the news of the debate on Craigslist, but after he found out he wasn't invited, he spammed a bunch of people with the message above that he was choosing not to attend. http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/vnn/142801135.html B. Frank

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

Try Googling "Jonathan R Rees" and you will find the citation right there in the DC Court of Appeals. I am sorry you can't find it with your Pacer and other advanced legal tools. This is an old case, so the Clintonian "Rees does not have" statement doesn't apply. As evidenced by the citation, the case in question is over a decade old. B. Frank

Well, I am no expert on DC Campaign laws, rules and regulations, but as the saying from Sesame Street goes, "one of these things is not like the other" and the Rees posters are not legal. Like I said, it is an issue for DCBoEE and OCF to deal with, and since you are the "Grim Reaper" and not Mr. Rees, you shouldn't worry about it. B. Frank

Try District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

The case as presented says that Rees filed a frivolous appeal. Clearly Rees would not have filed an appeal if he was victorious in Summary Judgement. Rees was the instigator of the appeal here, not Lugo, as you claim. B. Frank

Really? Here is one from the Apollo in Glover Park with no such annotation. There are other illegalities about this flyer that I will let the DC BoEE and OCF handle

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

Or this one? http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn...ION=95-2000.01A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX. REL. JONATHAN R. REES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. YOLANDA LUGO-RAMIREZ, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge] ____________________ Before Selya, Cyr and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Johathan R. Rees on brief pro se. ________________ Per Curiam. Appellant's argument that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing which it had scheduled on demand by appellant and which appellant then refused to attend, is frivolous. After a careful review, the judgment of the district court is affirmed for substantially the reasons stated in its order of July 7, 1995. See Loc. R. 27.1. ___

The relationship or facts behind: 94-5505 Jonathan R. Rees vs. Bianca L. Reyes

This gets better all the time. 1) The Prince Georges Medical Center (note, not 'hospital') does not have a dental clinic, nor does it have any Jonathan Rees on file as an administrator or any other contractor, sub-contractor, etc. 2) Instutional Dental Care (www.idcinc.com) is a business that enjoys a "revoked" status according to DCRA. It is also a suspended business in Maryland. There are no records of this company in Delaware or Virginia, the other states Mr. Rees has claimed it has done business. 3) Mr. Rees has called this company a variety of names, the only common thread is "Los Gallegos". Given the veracity of the previous two employment claims, and the paucity of information on this company, I will wait affirmative proof of this company, rather than to prove a negative. So, does Mr. Rees actually have a job? B. Frank

Interesting. I hadn't seen that before. Thanks for the reference. Alas......

Human, Actually there is not a cat and dog fight going on. In fact, I have not heard anything from any of the other announced candidates except that they are running for office. I am hopeful now that the real candidates for office will begin to discuss the issues that affect our lives. The tax assessment is a good start. Schools, public safety, and "affordable housing" are other issues of importance to me. I also wouldn't mind if the Council considered some stringent internet laws, where impersonations are taken seriously. Something that the last several weeks has taught me...nothing should be taken for granted where rational public discourse is concerned. B. Frank

nm

http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/2006/06-02-26.htm The Children of Entitlement Jonathan R. Rees, jrrees@peoplepc.com In my quest to be elected as the next Ward 3 council person, I have had to attend events city wide and, in this respect, I was a bit surprised to listen to people living on the other side of the city and having to hear their views about the people of Ward 3 as it concerns our government. What I have been hearing has been a bit of a shock. The most common things said have been: 1) the people of Ward 3 are snobs; 2) the people of Ward 3 are behind the un-admitted-to gentrification of the city; 3) the people of Ward 3 don’t care about those who are less fortunate and, when they say they do, it is very superficial; 4) the people of Ward 3 should not get any tax breaks as they don’t need it; 5) the people of Ward 3 caused the poverty in the other parts of the city; 6) the people of Ward 3 should move into Montgomery County, as they do not pull their weight; and other statements in which hostility for Ward 3 is loud and clear. Then I had to hear that Mayor Williams took away so much from the poor and gave to the rich of Ward 3, and the people of Ward 3 should pay for this when the political winds shift. Of course many in Ward 3 may find this hard to believe, but how many Ward 3 residents go to the other side of town and sit down and talk to people there? Probably not that many, unless their jobs requires it. What goes through my mind is, how many people over in Wards 1, 4, 5, 6, 7m and 8 hold these feelings of hostility for the people of Ward 3, whom many think have lived the good life at the expense of everybody else. Is this why members of our city council have been running often in different directions on so many issues known and unknown to the public? I wonder if in 2007 when we have at least four to five new faces on our city council, will we see the anger for the policies of Mayor Williams and for Ward 3 residents manifest itself in the type of legislation that will come down the pipes from members of the city council from those wards where people have taken the brunt of Mayor Williams and our current city council; or will we just hear the angry words still in the downwinds?