bfrankdc

1999 American Lawyer Media The Legal Intelligencer June 10, 1999 HEADLINE: Does Vulgar E-Mail to Judges Violate Prohibition on Filings? BYLINE: By Tom Schoenberg, American Lawyer Media BODY: On Feb. 10, the entire Washington, D.C. judiciary received an e-mail about a colleague. The message was filled with vulgarities and aimed at Superior Court Judge John Bayly Jr. It attacked Bayly's credibility and impartiality as a judge and mocked his religious beliefs. The end of the message revealed the author Jonathan Rees, a 43-year-old D.C. resident with a long history of litigation in the city's courts. At the time, Bayly was presiding over Rees' divorce case, which had been going on for eight years. A week after the e-mail, 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 late last month, in a hearing before Superior Court Judge Michael Rankin, the U.S. attorney's office recommended against prosecuting Rees for the contempt charge, arguing that he did not receive sufficient warning that his actions violated then Superior Court Judge Ricardo Urbina's 1992 order. Rankin agreed. "I'm inclined to accept the advice and recommendations that this matter be discharged on the theory that due process would require that the defendant have notice [that] specifically this type of e-mailing is coming within the gamut of Judge Urbina's order," Rankin said at the May 27 show-cause hearing. Urbina's order stated that Rees' "failure to seek leave of the Court before filing papers or in any way transmitting them to the D.C. Superior Court or any clerk of any division within the court, will be treated as contempt of court." At the hearing, Rankin suggested that Rees' electronic communications with the court may indeed have violated Urbina's order. "This is revolting stuff here," Rankin said. "This is pretty revolting, and I don't want anything more of it. "The judge then said he would leave it up to the U.S. attorney's office and Rees' lawyer to draft a proposed order dismissing Bayly's show-cause order. That order is expected to be filed this week. But the battle may not be over. 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. 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. "But Rees' attorney says that prohibiting his client from communicating with the judiciary would infringe on Rees' First Amendment right to free speech. "In my view, if an order prevents Rees from sending e-mail correspondence not related to the case at issue then the court is overstepping its bounds," says Ferguson Evans, a partner at D.C.'s Garrow & Evans and Rees' court-appointed attorney. This story first appeared in Legal Times.

Who is "stewart20008? Is he/she Roy Stewart? http://www.dcpages.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6431 OR Jon Rees http://www.dcpages.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6432 OR Gloria Guiterrez http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MountPleasan...e/5145?source=1 OR Ramon Rivera http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MountPleasan...DC/message/5141 Will the real Stewart20008 please stand up, or better yet, put away the multiple alias disorder?

Gloria, I mean Jon, posts like this seriously undermine any credibility you might have as a serious candidate for Ward 3 Council. ___________________________________________________________________ Gloria Posted: Nov 5 2005, 06:35 PM Newbie Group: Members Posts: 2 Member No.: 2966 Joined: 5-November 05 Many reporters from different newspapers and TV stations have requested that I make a position statement stating the difference between myself and my opponent Sam Brooks The difference between myself and my only opponent Sam Brooks is: I have around twenty five years of experience in mid to upper level business management and he has none; I have around ten years of experience in the legislative field before the United States Congress and state legislatures and he does not; I have devoted more of my time to helping the poor, elderly and sick and he only talks about it; I have gotten out and literally walked every street of Ward 3 to hand out my political flyer and completed all of Ward 3 in under three months to get my message to voters and my opponent has yet to get out and his strategy to get known is to manufacture/self-inflict wrongs done to gain media attention and while I humbly do my thing not taking anything for granted, my opponent treks DC with an aurora of arrogance, abrasive treatment of people, intimidating tactics and preaches a political agenda liking to what caused our economic calamity and the seizing of our government by a federal control board. My opponent’s philosophy is that of a these great programs of the past but due to his lack of any real work experience, what he advocates would bankrupt our city and doesn’t address our history of gross mismanagement of all forms of resources. Sam Brooks has no original ideas and like his senior year thesis on Marion Barry, his entire career has been a cut and pasting from the hard work others. The WASHINGTON POST, September 11, 2004; Page A20 speaking of my opponent Sam Brooks said: 1. The District deserves a better choice for city council. 2. He doesn’t come anywhere close in the needed experience overall in representing the city. 3. He is long on energy and ambition but short on community service, and lacks substantive knowledge of the problems confronting the city and ideas for solving them. 4. The District needs someone who knows how the government works, is familiar with the city other than through a political door-to-door campaign and who doesn't need on-the-job training in the basics. Sam Brooks talks about his youth and compares himself to Adrian Fenty but the big difference is, Adrian Fenty had an education in the right area to serve in government and Sam Brooks does not; Adrian Fenty had four to five years of work experience under his belt and Sam Brooks does not and can’t hold any job for long as the public record supports and Sam Brooks reminds people of many young people just out of college that walk through the door with no real work history believing they should be paid $50k to begin with only to get a chuckle. In sum, when you look carefully at the two candidates, it is night and day but to even think of electing a person with no real work history, a work history where a person can’t sit still and stay for long, who talks a lot about what we should do but has never bothered to jump into the trenches and actually do it and then asks you to vote for and trust him is like asking you to play a form of [Reverse Russian Roulette] where all the chamber but one is full of bullets. Sincerely, Jonathan R. Rees Committee To Elect Jonathan R. Rees Democrat For Ward 3 City Council P.O. Box 21422, Washington, DC 20009 http://www.dcpages.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6557