Preview
FILED: 7/14/2020 5:00 PM
David Trantham
Denton County District Clerk
By: David Trantham, Deputy
CAUSE NO. 20-2579-431
THOMAS RETZLAFF, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Petitioner,
Vs. OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
JASON LEE VAN DYKE,
Respondent. 43 1st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PETITONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND OFFER
OF PROOF REGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF JAMES
MCGIBNEY
In Van Dyke’s July 13 supplemental reply to Mr. Retzlaff’s response
to the motion to quash the McGibney subpoena, Van Dyke complained
about the timing of Mr. Retzlaffs offer of proof.
In the court’s July 14 orders quashing the McGibney subpoena, the
court made no reference to having first examined or considered Mr.
Retzlaff’s offer of proof. So, just to be safe, Mr. Retzlaff wishes to resubmit
his offer of proof and he asks the court to please reconsider its rulings in
light of this.
For some inexplicable reason, Van Dyke objected to Mr. Retzlaff’s
previous offer of proof by claiming that, “Petitioner has not provided any
actual evidence in his offer of proof to this Court. Rather, he has provided
his opinion as to what he expects the testimony of Mr. McGibney to be.”
Mr. Retzlaff would respond by saying, “Yeah, that’s kind of how it’s
supposed to work.” The person making the offer does not provide any
“actual” evidence in his offer; instead, he/she merely offers a summary of
the substance of the excluded testimony. This is not Mr. Retzlaff’s
“opinion”, this is a summary of the substance of the testimony.
For example, in Triesch v. Triesch, No. 03-15-00102-CV, 2016 WL
1039035 (Tex. App. Mar. 8, 2016), the court cited to Texas Rule of
Evidence 103(a)(2), which is virtually identical to Federal Rule of Evidence
103(a)(2), and provides that to “preserve error concerning the exclusion of
evidence, the complaining party must demonstrate the substance of the
excluded evidence through an offer of proof or a bill of exception unless the
substance of the evidence is apparent from the context.” 2016 WL 1039035,
at *6.
An appellate court reviews a trial court’s exclusion of evidence for an
abuse of discretion. JLG Trucking, LLC v. Garza, 466 S.W.3d 157, 161
(Tex. 2015). Erroneous exclusion of evidence is reversible only if it
probably resulted in an improper judgment. Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a)(1);
Garza, 466 S.W.3d at 161. To preserve error concerning the exclusion of
evidence, the complaining party must demonstrate the substance of the
excluded evidence through an offer of proof or a bill of exception unless the
substance of the evidence is apparent from the context. Tex. R. Evid.
103(a)(2); Compton v. Pfannenstiel, 428 S.W.3d 881, 885 (Tex. App. —
Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). “‘While the reviewing court may
sometimes be able to discern from the record the general nature of the
evidence and the propriety of the trial court’s ruling, it cannot, without an
_
offer of proof, determine whether exclusion of the evidence was harmfu
Compton, 428 S.W.3d at 886 (quoting Akukoro v. Akukoro, No. 01-12-
01072-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 15302, at *17-18 (Tex. App. — Houston
[1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)). Thus, failure to demonstrate
the substance of the excluded evidence through an offer of proof or bill of
exception results in waiver of any error in its exclusion. Bobbora y. Unitrin
Ins. Servs., 255 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2008, no pet.).
OFFER OF PROOF
As provided by Texas Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2), Mr. Retzlaff
provides the court with this offer of proof summarizing the substance of the
expected testimony of nonparty witness James McGibney:
1) Since February 2011, McGibney has run a revenge pornography
website called Cheaterville.com (www.Cheaterville.com) in which
McGibney posts the intimate photographs of thousands of girls and
young women, along with their personal details (work & home
address, age, physical descriptions, name of school).
2) McGibney then adds horrible, defamatory comments about these
individuals (such as falsely accusing them of having AIDS or an
STD or of being a drug addict or criminal). McGibney then
actively encourages members of the public to add their own
comments about the girls.
3) Once your photo and details have been posted on McGibney’s
Cheaterville website, the only way to get it removed is to pay a fee
of up to $499. McGibney actively encourages people to post
defamatory comments about the people posted on his website as a
means of making the victims pay his removal fees.
4) In addition to the Cheaterville website, since July 2010 McGibney
has run a cyber-bullying website called Bullyville.com
(www.Bullyville.com) in which McGibney posts photographs and
personal information of all of his personal enemies and people who
he has grudges against.
5) McGibney earned revenues of more than $28,000 a month at one
point from these websites. In a defamation lawsuit involving
Hunter Moore in Las Vegas, NV, McGibney claimed he was a
“public figure.” The court in Las Vegas accepted that claim and
deemed McGibney a public figure and awarded him damages of
$250,000 in a default judgment for loss of his reputation due to Mr.
Moore allegedly calling McGibney a pedophile in a single Tweet.
6) In December of 2012, McGibney posted photographs of Mr.
Retzlaff’s daughter, Brittany, on his Cheaterville website along
with claims she and Mr. Retzlaff were involved in an incestuous
relationship that resulted in her getting pregnant and leaving the
country.
7) In the fall of 2013, Mr. Retzlaff started making complaints to
McGibney’s internet hosting company, his advertisers,
governmental regulators, and anyone else who would listen.
8) These complaints eventually resulted in the complete loss of all
revenues for McGibney.
9) McGibney has been used at least 4 times in federal court for
defamation, extortion, and blackmail as a result of his websites and
the things he posts on them.
10) In retaliation for these complaints by Mr. Retzlaff, McGibney
filed a series of SLAPP lawsuits against Mr. Retzlaff in retaliation
for Mr. Retzlaff’s exercise of his First Amendment rights: Two in
San Jose, California, and one in Fort Worth, Texas.
11) McGibney has repeatedly bragged in news media articles about
being a self-professed “expert” in getting revenge on people,
whose personal motto is “You have to be a bully to beat a bully!”
12) McGibney also professes white supremacist and racist beliefs
on his websites and in social media. He is also a supporter of the
Proud Boys group and is a close associate of Jason Lee Van Dyke
who has been communicating with McGibney on a weekly basis
since at least December 2017 regarding Mr. Retzlaff.
13) In news articles and social media posts going back at least 6
years, McGibney repeatedly claims membership or association
with the hacking groups Anonymous and The Rustle League.
McGibney further brags about having an “online army of trolls” at
his disposal and that these individuals assist him with the making
and filing of false police reports against Mr. Retzlaff and
McGibney’s other enemies, as well as helping McGibney with his
online defamation campaign against Mr. Retzlaff and McGibney’s
other enemies.
14) McGibney claims to have received specialized training from the
U.S. Marine Corps regarding the detection and identification of
individuals who use anonymous social media accounts and IP
addresses. McGibney has testified under oath that he has such
skills several times in lawsuits that he has filed against Mr.
Retzlaff.
15) McGibney claims that, as a result of his “specialized” training
and skills, he has identified Mr. Retzlaff as an author and/or
administrator of the “BV Files” website (www. ViaViewFiles.net)
using various techniques or research that is unknown to Van Dyke.
McGibney is the only source of this information, which is at the
very heart of Van Dyke’s affirmative defenses in this case.
16) In the other lawsuits McGibney has filed against Mr. Retzlaff,
McGibney has variously claimed at least 10 other people are the
authors and/or administrators for this “BV Files” website.
17) All of the lawsuits McGibney has filed against Mr. Retzlaff
resulted in judgments in Mr. Retzlaff’s favor, to include a
December 2015 order from the 67" District Court of Tarrant
County, Texas, ordering McGibney to pay over $1.3 million in
sanctions and attorney’s fees in a lawsuit he filed against Mr.
Retzlaff and others regarding this “BV Files” blog.
18) As a part of McGibney’s campaign of revenge against Mr.
Retzlaff, McGibney has filed a series of false reports with the FBI
and other law enforcement agencies falsely accusing Mr. Retzlaff
(and others) of committing various crimes against him, such as
cyber-stalking and online harassment. McGibney will further
testify that he has falsely claimed that Mr. Retzlaff has made
threats to murder him or his family. McGibney has falsely claimed
that James Duffy, Hunter Moore, and Neal Rauhauser are also
trying to murder him, too.
19) The making of false police reports against his enemies is a
specific strategy employed by McGibney. McGibney openly brags
about this on social media saying (among other things), “I don’t
have a heart. I’m a mean, vindictive & psychopathic motherfucker
that administers revenge like a brutal fist fucking.” He further
brags, “I am not the type of person who makes veiled threats just to
scare you. I plot my revenge silently and psychotically.”
20) McGibney will testify that Mr. Retzlaff is his Number One
enemy and he will further testify that he has spent the past 6 2
years trying to get his revenge against Mr. Retzlaff for Mr.
Retzlaff’s public criticism of McGibney’s websites and business
practices, which resulted in the loss of several millions of dollars to
McGibney.
21) McGibney will testify that he lost a television deal with Warner
Brothers, and that he lost an opportunity to have a cover story
written about him on Rolling Stone Magazine. McGibney will
further testify that he lost investors in his ViaView, Inc. company
and that his reputation has been damaged — all as a result of efforts
by Mr. Retzlaff— and others — whom he has claim have conspired
against him and ruined his revenge porn and bullying websites.
22) Jason Lee Van Dyke has filed a $100 million defamation
lawsuit against Mr. Retzlaff that is currently pending in federal
court in Texas.
23) McGibney will testify that he harbors a great deal of animus
and/or ill will towards Mr. Retzlaff and that his motives for
testifying / helping Van Dyke is so as to sabotage Mr. Retzlaff’s
ability to defend himself in that $100 million lawsuit.
24) McGibney will further testify that he actually has no admissible
evidence whatsoever that establishes that Mr. Retzlaff is
responsible for any of the articles or administration of the “BV
Files” blog, and that he is just making it up as he goes along.
25) McGibney will testify that he knows that he has absolutely no
evidence that Mr. Retzlaff has anything to do with that “BV Files”
blog. McGibney will testify that he has wrongly accused many
other people before in the past of being authors or administrators
for that blog. He will further testify that he has submitted
fabricated evidence to different judges in his SLAPP lawsuits
regarding McGibney’s claims pertaining to Mr. Retzlaff and this
blog.
26) McGibney will also testify that for the past 6 2 years he has
been orchestrating an internet defamation campaign against Mr.
Retzlaff and his attorney Jeffrey Dorrell in which McGibney has
falsely accused Mr. Retzlaff of being a convicted sex offender, a
convicted pedophile, and a registered sex offender (among other
things). McGibney knows that these claims are false, but he makes
them specifically to harm Mr. Retzlaff’s reputation and credibility.
27) McGibney will testify that he has purposefully ‘set up’ Jason
Van Dyke to file his $100 million lawsuit against Mr. Retzlaff
because he views Van Dyke as a “useful idiot” in McGibney’s plot
to get revenge against Mr. Retzlaff and that McGibney does his
best to get Van Dyke all wired up with nonsense knowing that Van
Dyke will charge ahead and attack whomever McGibney steers
him towards because Van Dyke trusts McGibney.!
28) The reason why McGibney needed Van Dyke to file these
lawsuits is because McGibney was hoping that it would cost Mr.
Retzlaff money to defend and that it would draw resources and
attention away from Mr. Retzlaff and the Hanszen Laporte law
firm’s defense of the other SLAPP lawsuit that McGibney filed,
the one pending in the Fort Worth court.
29) McGibney will testify that he has fabricated evidence and
claims against other people in the past as a means of getting
revenge on them or otherwise settling grudges. McGibney will
testify that he also does this so he can gain publicity for himself
and his Bullyville.com websites with people on Twitter and the
internet.
30) McGibney has used Mr. Retzlaff’s name and these lawsuits he
has filed against Mr. Retzlaff as a fund raising tool having
specifically set up a Go Fund Me account seeking to raise more
than $75,000 for his cause.
31) McGibney will testify that he has falsely claimed that Mr.
Retzlaff was responsible for the Cheaterville post regarding his
daughter, Brittany, and that he made these false claims under oath
and in his lawsuits against Mr. Retzlaff so as to gain an unfair
Which was a huge mistake on Van Dyke’s part.
advantage over Mr. Retzlaff in the court of public opinion and in a
court of law.
32) McGibney will also testify that he has previously claimed on
social media to hacking into the email and computer servers of the
Hanszen Laporte law firm in Houston and threatening to put child
pomography on them. The Hanszen Laporte law firm is the law
firm representing Mr. Retzlaff and Mr. Rauhauser.
33) With regards to the documents that Mr. Retzlaff wishes to
subpoena, McGibney will testify that these are all his own personal
documents, either created by himself or given to him by other
individuals or entities. McGibney will testify that he is not a law
enforcement officer and that he is not employed by the FBI.
34) McGibney will further testify that he has lied to FBI Special
Agent Walker Wicevich (and other law enforcement officers)
regarding his accusations against Mr. Retzlaff. He has also lied to
Assistant U.S. Attorney Aimee Cooper and Ms. Cooper has
personal knowledge of the fact that all of McGibney’s claims
against Mr. Retzlaff have been false and, in fact, the FBI has
already cleared Mr. Retzlaff of any wrongdoing.
Respectfully submitted,
Som
Thomas Retzlaff
PO Box 46424
Phoenix, AZ 85063-6424
(210) 317-9800
email: Retzlaff@texas.net
Petitioner, pro se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on July 14, 2020, a copy of this document was
electronically filed with the Texas e-Filing system, which will automatically
serve a Notice of Electronic Filing on the following counsel of record:
Jason Lee Van Dyke — respondent, pro se
James McGibney — nonparty witness
Aimee Cooper — United States
Nom
Thomas Retzlaff
10
Preview
FILED: 7/14/2020 5:00 PM David Trantham Denton County District Clerk By: David Trantham, Deputy CAUSE NO. 20-2579-431 THOMAS RETZLAFF, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Petitioner, Vs. OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS JASON LEE VAN DYKE, Respondent. 43 1st JUDICIAL DISTRICT PETITONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF JAMES MCGIBNEY In Van Dyke’s July 13 supplemental reply to Mr. Retzlaff’s response to the motion to quash the McGibney subpoena, Van Dyke complained about the timing of Mr. Retzlaffs offer of proof. In the court’s July 14 orders quashing the McGibney subpoena, the court made no reference to having first examined or considered Mr. Retzlaff’s offer of proof. So, just to be safe, Mr. Retzlaff wishes to resubmit his offer of proof and he asks the court to please reconsider its rulings in light of this. For some inexplicable reason, Van Dyke objected to Mr. Retzlaff’s previous offer of proof by claiming that, “Petitioner has not provided any actual evidence in his offer of proof to this Court. Rather, he has provided his opinion as to what he expects the testimony of Mr. McGibney to be.” Mr. Retzlaff would respond by saying, “Yeah, that’s kind of how it’s supposed to work.” The person making the offer does not provide any “actual” evidence in his offer; instead, he/she merely offers a summary of the substance of the excluded testimony. This is not Mr. Retzlaff’s “opinion”, this is a summary of the substance of the testimony. For example, in Triesch v. Triesch, No. 03-15-00102-CV, 2016 WL 1039035 (Tex. App. Mar. 8, 2016), the court cited to Texas Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2), which is virtually identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2), and provides that to “preserve error concerning the exclusion of evidence, the complaining party must demonstrate the substance of the excluded evidence through an offer of proof or a bill of exception unless the substance of the evidence is apparent from the context.” 2016 WL 1039035, at *6. An appellate court reviews a trial court’s exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. JLG Trucking, LLC v. Garza, 466 S.W.3d 157, 161 (Tex. 2015). Erroneous exclusion of evidence is reversible only if it probably resulted in an improper judgment. Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a)(1); Garza, 466 S.W.3d at 161. To preserve error concerning the exclusion of evidence, the complaining party must demonstrate the substance of the excluded evidence through an offer of proof or a bill of exception unless the substance of the evidence is apparent from the context. Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2); Compton v. Pfannenstiel, 428 S.W.3d 881, 885 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). “‘While the reviewing court may sometimes be able to discern from the record the general nature of the evidence and the propriety of the trial court’s ruling, it cannot, without an _ offer of proof, determine whether exclusion of the evidence was harmfu Compton, 428 S.W.3d at 886 (quoting Akukoro v. Akukoro, No. 01-12- 01072-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 15302, at *17-18 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)). Thus, failure to demonstrate the substance of the excluded evidence through an offer of proof or bill of exception results in waiver of any error in its exclusion. Bobbora y. Unitrin Ins. Servs., 255 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2008, no pet.). OFFER OF PROOF As provided by Texas Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2), Mr. Retzlaff provides the court with this offer of proof summarizing the substance of the expected testimony of nonparty witness James McGibney: 1) Since February 2011, McGibney has run a revenge pornography website called Cheaterville.com (www.Cheaterville.com) in which McGibney posts the intimate photographs of thousands of girls and young women, along with their personal details (work & home address, age, physical descriptions, name of school). 2) McGibney then adds horrible, defamatory comments about these individuals (such as falsely accusing them of having AIDS or an STD or of being a drug addict or criminal). McGibney then actively encourages members of the public to add their own comments about the girls. 3) Once your photo and details have been posted on McGibney’s Cheaterville website, the only way to get it removed is to pay a fee of up to $499. McGibney actively encourages people to post defamatory comments about the people posted on his website as a means of making the victims pay his removal fees. 4) In addition to the Cheaterville website, since July 2010 McGibney has run a cyber-bullying website called Bullyville.com (www.Bullyville.com) in which McGibney posts photographs and personal information of all of his personal enemies and people who he has grudges against. 5) McGibney earned revenues of more than $28,000 a month at one point from these websites. In a defamation lawsuit involving Hunter Moore in Las Vegas, NV, McGibney claimed he was a “public figure.” The court in Las Vegas accepted that claim and deemed McGibney a public figure and awarded him damages of $250,000 in a default judgment for loss of his reputation due to Mr. Moore allegedly calling McGibney a pedophile in a single Tweet. 6) In December of 2012, McGibney posted photographs of Mr. Retzlaff’s daughter, Brittany, on his Cheaterville website along with claims she and Mr. Retzlaff were involved in an incestuous relationship that resulted in her getting pregnant and leaving the country. 7) In the fall of 2013, Mr. Retzlaff started making complaints to McGibney’s internet hosting company, his advertisers, governmental regulators, and anyone else who would listen. 8) These complaints eventually resulted in the complete loss of all revenues for McGibney. 9) McGibney has been used at least 4 times in federal court for defamation, extortion, and blackmail as a result of his websites and the things he posts on them. 10) In retaliation for these complaints by Mr. Retzlaff, McGibney filed a series of SLAPP lawsuits against Mr. Retzlaff in retaliation for Mr. Retzlaff’s exercise of his First Amendment rights: Two in San Jose, California, and one in Fort Worth, Texas. 11) McGibney has repeatedly bragged in news media articles about being a self-professed “expert” in getting revenge on people, whose personal motto is “You have to be a bully to beat a bully!” 12) McGibney also professes white supremacist and racist beliefs on his websites and in social media. He is also a supporter of the Proud Boys group and is a close associate of Jason Lee Van Dyke who has been communicating with McGibney on a weekly basis since at least December 2017 regarding Mr. Retzlaff. 13) In news articles and social media posts going back at least 6 years, McGibney repeatedly claims membership or association with the hacking groups Anonymous and The Rustle League. McGibney further brags about having an “online army of trolls” at his disposal and that these individuals assist him with the making and filing of false police reports against Mr. Retzlaff and McGibney’s other enemies, as well as helping McGibney with his online defamation campaign against Mr. Retzlaff and McGibney’s other enemies. 14) McGibney claims to have received specialized training from the U.S. Marine Corps regarding the detection and identification of individuals who use anonymous social media accounts and IP addresses. McGibney has testified under oath that he has such skills several times in lawsuits that he has filed against Mr. Retzlaff. 15) McGibney claims that, as a result of his “specialized” training and skills, he has identified Mr. Retzlaff as an author and/or administrator of the “BV Files” website (www. ViaViewFiles.net) using various techniques or research that is unknown to Van Dyke. McGibney is the only source of this information, which is at the very heart of Van Dyke’s affirmative defenses in this case. 16) In the other lawsuits McGibney has filed against Mr. Retzlaff, McGibney has variously claimed at least 10 other people are the authors and/or administrators for this “BV Files” website. 17) All of the lawsuits McGibney has filed against Mr. Retzlaff resulted in judgments in Mr. Retzlaff’s favor, to include a December 2015 order from the 67" District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, ordering McGibney to pay over $1.3 million in sanctions and attorney’s fees in a lawsuit he filed against Mr. Retzlaff and others regarding this “BV Files” blog. 18) As a part of McGibney’s campaign of revenge against Mr. Retzlaff, McGibney has filed a series of false reports with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies falsely accusing Mr. Retzlaff (and others) of committing various crimes against him, such as cyber-stalking and online harassment. McGibney will further testify that he has falsely claimed that Mr. Retzlaff has made threats to murder him or his family. McGibney has falsely claimed that James Duffy, Hunter Moore, and Neal Rauhauser are also trying to murder him, too. 19) The making of false police reports against his enemies is a specific strategy employed by McGibney. McGibney openly brags about this on social media saying (among other things), “I don’t have a heart. I’m a mean, vindictive & psychopathic motherfucker that administers revenge like a brutal fist fucking.” He further brags, “I am not the type of person who makes veiled threats just to scare you. I plot my revenge silently and psychotically.” 20) McGibney will testify that Mr. Retzlaff is his Number One enemy and he will further testify that he has spent the past 6 2 years trying to get his revenge against Mr. Retzlaff for Mr. Retzlaff’s public criticism of McGibney’s websites and business practices, which resulted in the loss of several millions of dollars to McGibney. 21) McGibney will testify that he lost a television deal with Warner Brothers, and that he lost an opportunity to have a cover story written about him on Rolling Stone Magazine. McGibney will further testify that he lost investors in his ViaView, Inc. company and that his reputation has been damaged — all as a result of efforts by Mr. Retzlaff— and others — whom he has claim have conspired against him and ruined his revenge porn and bullying websites. 22) Jason Lee Van Dyke has filed a $100 million defamation lawsuit against Mr. Retzlaff that is currently pending in federal court in Texas. 23) McGibney will testify that he harbors a great deal of animus and/or ill will towards Mr. Retzlaff and that his motives for testifying / helping Van Dyke is so as to sabotage Mr. Retzlaff’s ability to defend himself in that $100 million lawsuit. 24) McGibney will further testify that he actually has no admissible evidence whatsoever that establishes that Mr. Retzlaff is responsible for any of the articles or administration of the “BV Files” blog, and that he is just making it up as he goes along. 25) McGibney will testify that he knows that he has absolutely no evidence that Mr. Retzlaff has anything to do with that “BV Files” blog. McGibney will testify that he has wrongly accused many other people before in the past of being authors or administrators for that blog. He will further testify that he has submitted fabricated evidence to different judges in his SLAPP lawsuits regarding McGibney’s claims pertaining to Mr. Retzlaff and this blog. 26) McGibney will also testify that for the past 6 2 years he has been orchestrating an internet defamation campaign against Mr. Retzlaff and his attorney Jeffrey Dorrell in which McGibney has falsely accused Mr. Retzlaff of being a convicted sex offender, a convicted pedophile, and a registered sex offender (among other things). McGibney knows that these claims are false, but he makes them specifically to harm Mr. Retzlaff’s reputation and credibility. 27) McGibney will testify that he has purposefully ‘set up’ Jason Van Dyke to file his $100 million lawsuit against Mr. Retzlaff because he views Van Dyke as a “useful idiot” in McGibney’s plot to get revenge against Mr. Retzlaff and that McGibney does his best to get Van Dyke all wired up with nonsense knowing that Van Dyke will charge ahead and attack whomever McGibney steers him towards because Van Dyke trusts McGibney.! 28) The reason why McGibney needed Van Dyke to file these lawsuits is because McGibney was hoping that it would cost Mr. Retzlaff money to defend and that it would draw resources and attention away from Mr. Retzlaff and the Hanszen Laporte law firm’s defense of the other SLAPP lawsuit that McGibney filed, the one pending in the Fort Worth court. 29) McGibney will testify that he has fabricated evidence and claims against other people in the past as a means of getting revenge on them or otherwise settling grudges. McGibney will testify that he also does this so he can gain publicity for himself and his Bullyville.com websites with people on Twitter and the internet. 30) McGibney has used Mr. Retzlaff’s name and these lawsuits he has filed against Mr. Retzlaff as a fund raising tool having specifically set up a Go Fund Me account seeking to raise more than $75,000 for his cause. 31) McGibney will testify that he has falsely claimed that Mr. Retzlaff was responsible for the Cheaterville post regarding his daughter, Brittany, and that he made these false claims under oath and in his lawsuits against Mr. Retzlaff so as to gain an unfair Which was a huge mistake on Van Dyke’s part. advantage over Mr. Retzlaff in the court of public opinion and in a court of law. 32) McGibney will also testify that he has previously claimed on social media to hacking into the email and computer servers of the Hanszen Laporte law firm in Houston and threatening to put child pomography on them. The Hanszen Laporte law firm is the law firm representing Mr. Retzlaff and Mr. Rauhauser. 33) With regards to the documents that Mr. Retzlaff wishes to subpoena, McGibney will testify that these are all his own personal documents, either created by himself or given to him by other individuals or entities. McGibney will testify that he is not a law enforcement officer and that he is not employed by the FBI. 34) McGibney will further testify that he has lied to FBI Special Agent Walker Wicevich (and other law enforcement officers) regarding his accusations against Mr. Retzlaff. He has also lied to Assistant U.S. Attorney Aimee Cooper and Ms. Cooper has personal knowledge of the fact that all of McGibney’s claims against Mr. Retzlaff have been false and, in fact, the FBI has already cleared Mr. Retzlaff of any wrongdoing. Respectfully submitted, Som Thomas Retzlaff PO Box 46424 Phoenix, AZ 85063-6424 (210) 317-9800 email: Retzlaff@texas.net Petitioner, pro se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 14, 2020, a copy of this document was electronically filed with the Texas e-Filing system, which will automatically serve a Notice of Electronic Filing on the following counsel of record: Jason Lee Van Dyke — respondent, pro se James McGibney — nonparty witness Aimee Cooper — United States Nom Thomas Retzlaff 10