Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

Jonathan Rees Email Attacks Dc Judge


Recommended Posts

I recieved this email from a source that wished to remain anonymous.

 

I thought you might find this article from the American Lawyer another interesting piece of the Rees puzzle.

 

June 7, 1999, Monday

 

SECTION: SUPERIOR COURT WATCH; Pg. 10

 

LENGTH: 1502 words

 

HEADLINE: IS VULGAR E-MAIL CONTEMPT?

 

BYLINE: TOM SCHOENBERG

 

BODY:

On Feb. 10, the entire 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.

 

Judge 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recieved this email from a source that wished to remain anonymous.

 

I thought you might find this article from the American Lawyer another interesting piece of the Rees puzzle.

 

June 7, 1999, Monday

 

SECTION: SUPERIOR COURT WATCH; Pg. 10

 

LENGTH: 1502 words

 

HEADLINE: IS VULGAR E-MAIL CONTEMPT?

 

BYLINE: TOM SCHOENBERG

 

BODY:

On Feb. 10, the entire 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.

 

Judge 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.

One thing that is missing here is, there have been around 6 Jonathan Rees in DC according to public records; One is an attorney for Hogan & Hartson; one was an employee with Lyndon LaRouche who was in trouble at DC Superior Court as mentioned herein at this period of time and was later sent to prison with LaRoche and the other Jonathan Rees with their particulars unknow.

 

It is not hard to find a long string of people with the same name and the say this is our John Doe.

 

The public record will show that "this" Jonathan Rees at issue was working in the U.S. Virgin Islands at the time of this alledged event.

 

This fact that I was in the U.S. Virgin Islands working from 1998-2000 was made an issue by many in other list servers and I believe this one.

 

You cannot attack me and say to some, Rees was living in the Virgin Islands at a set time, then say this is our Rees and then in another formum say that I was that Rees reported about elsewhere.

 

What you see here is a taking advantage of a name and then saying hey this is our guy but fail to tell everyone that there are 6 other guys in our city with the same name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recieved this email from a source that wished to remain anonymous.

 

I thought you might find this article from the American Lawyer another interesting piece of the Rees puzzle.

 

June 7, 1999, Monday

 

SECTION: SUPERIOR COURT WATCH; Pg. 10

 

LENGTH: 1502 words

 

HEADLINE: IS VULGAR E-MAIL CONTEMPT?

 

BYLINE: TOM SCHOENBERG

 

BODY:

On Feb. 10, the entire 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.

 

Judge 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.

Mr. Wilbur,

 

For the record, I Jonathan Rees, the candidate in June 1999 was 45 years old not 43 as the Jonathan Rees in your re-posting. My birthdate is January 10, 1955 but the other Jonathan Rees would be one or two years younger than me which is the age of "that" Jonathan Rees who lived in DC, worked for Lydon LaRouche, had a recorded divorce in DC, moved to Virginia in 2000 and had problems in federal court over some scham he was involved with along with LaRouche.

 

I spoke to one of the deputy clerks at the Family Court in the DC Superior Court and asked her about this case pointing out the attacks on me. I was told that the records of this case were sealed but a basic sheet could be had but any request to do so would require filing out a form and paying a fee.

 

The clerk seemed to know of this matter and she said, several people including my opponent Sam Brooks was "here" earlier to get a copy of this case but when he was told that he had to fill out a form stating his name, address, telephone number and show a picture I.D., he refused and left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are stating that you are not the same Jonathan Rees as the one listed.

You think the source which did not give me his/her name is working with Sam Brooks. And finally a clerk witnessed Sam Brooks trying to get information about this case. Do you remember the name of the clerk you spoke with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are stating that you are not the same Jonathan Rees as the one listed.

You think the source which did not give me his/her name is working with Sam Brooks. And finally a clerk witnessed Sam Brooks trying to get information about this case. Do you remember the name of the clerk you spoke with?

No I don't Mr. Wilbur but I am told that Sam also went yesterday to the DC Office of Campaign Finance to see information about me and when he was asked to fill out a form identifying who was asking for such, he refused to do so and left.

 

Maybe the OCF can verify for you if Mr. Brooks A/k/a JT Franks did such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are stating that you are not the same Jonathan Rees as the one listed.

You think the source which did not give me his/her name is working with Sam Brooks. And finally a clerk witnessed Sam Brooks trying to get information about this case. Do you remember the name of the clerk you spoke with?

Right now, with emails coming at me asking did you see this or that; some being very nasty as if I was Jack the Ripper and others saying it is that preppy jerk Sam Brooks behind it all and when I go and try to see a profile on who is writing, they have none, and this is just getting all of us off track of what we should be doing and that is, discussing the issues that concern Ward 3.

 

If you look back over in the Yahoo list servers, you will see that no sooner than I had announced my candidacy, i was hit by this same person and a Eric Marshall with ugly name calling of being a liar, my whole life and facts were twisted around to suit whatever their goal was and I must ask, will we ever get to the issues?

 

Luke, go look as this is not right and JT Frank has not let up for a minute. He is mentally unbalanced that he has to spend long hours each day jumping on me in every forum he can find. Doesn't that smell like the behavior of the opposition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...