Ads

..

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Thomas Retzlaff Depraved Emails, Part 5; Tom Retzlaff Exposed

Posted By: ZiLe Ohai - 8:26 AM









More of Thomas Retzlaff's depraved emails. This guy needs to be back in prison.






Email sent from "Jost Heinz" to Attorney Jay Leiderman on April 23, 2014.














Email sent from "Dean Anderson" <dean714@yandex.com> on April 28, 2014 to Attorney Paul Gianni, who is representing Plaintiff ViaView in Texas. He copied Jeffrey Dorrell, who is an attorney in Texas, currently representing Neal Rauhauser. ViaView is suing Neal Rauhauser in this Federal lawsuit but has been unable to serve him, since he has 4 outstanding warrants for his arrest and is believed to be on the run.












Email sent from "Dean Anderson" <dean714@yandex.com> on April 29, 2014 to Attorney Paul Gianni, who is representing Plaintiff ViaView in Texas. He copied Jeffrey Dorrell, who is an attorney in Texas, currently representing Neal Rauhauser. ViaView is suing Neal Rauhauser in this Federal lawsuit but has been unable to serve him, since he has 4 outstanding warrants for his arrest and is believed to be on the run.













Email sent from "Tom Retzlaff" <retzlaff@texas.net> on July 14, 2014 to Attorney Jay Leiderman.

-----Original Message-----

From: Tom Retzlaff <retzlaff@texas.net>

Date: July 14, 2014 at 22:47:38 PDT

To: jay@criminal-lawyer.me

Subject: ViaView lawsuits



Dear Mr. Leiderman,

As you are no doubt aware by now your process server served your lawsuits. Unfortunately he served my son and not me. As you are also no doubt aware, I am in the hospital having just had abdominal surgery today, less than 8 hours ago. I have tons of witnesses.

As you also know, PERSONAL service is required, not service on someone else. My son and his mother will be filing affidavits to that effect when I file my motion to strike for defective service.

I am also informing you that I know all about your hacking tricks and your hacking buddies. Any emails you send me - to include attachments, will be blocked so I don't get any malware. However, when you receive my response to your lawsuits I will provide an address for delivery of court documents.

Be advised that I will be filing a lawsuit against you for calling me a convicted sex offender on twitter as well as in your letters you sent to various 3rd parties.

Be advised that each of my children (not just the ones you think you know about) will be filing for protective orders against your client James McGibney in each of their home jurisdictions. So you will be spending lots of time flying all over the place.

I will also be filing a lawsuit against your client, ViaView and McGibney for calling me a convicted sex offender on twitter.

As soon as I get out of the hospital later this week I will spend $20 to file these lawsuits in small claims courts, separately.

My time is plentiful and it is free. If you wish to make representation of ViaView a career, I would suggest that you get your retainer monies up front and in full. Judging from your clients history, managing money is a skill he does not possess.

By the way, I understand from reading a news article that your client committed perjury during the TRO hearing.
Best regards,

Tom Retzlaff






Email sent from "Dean Anderson" <dean714@yandex.com> on September 14, 2014 to Attorney Kirsten Claire in Florida.



-------- Original message --------

From: Dean

Date:09/14/2014 10:03 PM (GMT-05:00)

To: Kirstenclaire

Subject: Re: Follow up



Just a quick response in bwteen football games, will write more later this evening.

JoJo Camp has NEVER had any kind of admin access to the website. That would make as much sense as making Neal Rauhauser or Retzlaff admins. Seriously. Why would you even think that?

The only "access" those retards have is that of a common visitor and/or commentator. But since we (and I) have no way of knowing who is behind an IP (and we don't care) there is no way to know if they even come and visit at all. It is all anonymous.

I work for an international energy company. One of the co-admins here also works with me there. The other two are in the financial services industries. At my company we have access to the ChoicePoint & Lexis-Nexis for LEO, and Accurint databases, as well as all state DMV, SSA, IRS, credit bureaus, Dept of State travel & passport, Dept of Defense, and FBI / NCIC database access. Ever since 9/11 our company has had this access. The company I work for runs oil refineries, nuclear power plants, chemical plants, and transportation infrastructure.

Every person who applies for a job needs special clearance. After 9-11 the US Govt gave companies like the one I work for access to nearly all of their databases so we could perform background checks. After all, nobody wants some lunatic or criminal working around nuclear power plants or stuff like that, right?

So the Govt gives companies like ours unfettered access to every thing they have. While it would be cool to say we have access to CIA stuff, we don't. But what we do do is submit the name and personal identifiers to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. We get back either a red card or a green card as to whether or not the person has been cleared by their database. Guess which color is the 'good' one? lol

Thus, finding out McGibney's FAKE college 'degrees', his Stolen Valor FRAUD (and our publishing his military records), as well as an in-depth anal probe of his financial history, took all of about 15 minutes. His name is flagged in several databases.

Interestingly enough, his name recently came up as a subject of an anti-terror investigation. I am desperately trying to find out more so I can post about it on the BV Files. But right now all I got are whispers and his name linked with a database that our company should not have even been given access to - and that an American citizen who claims to be a former Marine has no god damn business being on!. When i checked again a couple of days later (when I had more time) I couldn't even find that database anymore. That happens some times where we will get temporary access to something weird.

Like for instance, we once had access to the whole No Fly List database (names and everything) for about a week before someone in the Govt realized it and disconnected us. That list is super secret as you could imagine. But every so often the govt gets its wires crossed and something 'special' like that happens.

But anyways, none of them retards got admin access.

I'll write more later.

best wishes,

Dean




The following email from September 19, 2014 was forwarded to Attorney Jay Leiderman from Attorney Mark Chernoff. Mr. Chernoff was representing a "Jane Doe" who is the owner of www.jeffreydorrell.com. Mr. Retzlaff issued a subpoena to GoDaddy for the private ownership information for the domain www.jeffreydorrell.com and for reasons still unknown, Mr. Retzlaff tied the subpoena into the lawsuit he filed against Attorney Jay Leiderman. Attorney Jeffrey Dorrell does not represent Mr. Retzlaff. After receiving the following email from Thomas Retzlaff, it is our understanding that Mr. Chernoff withdrew from the case due to safety concerns.

-------- Original message --------

From: Tom Retzlaff [mailto:retzlaff@texas.net]

Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 12:12 PM

To: Mark Chernoff Cc: Jeffrey Dorrell

Subject: Retzlaff v. Leiderman, Arrowhead Justice Court, case # CC2014-122228

Importance: High
Dear Mr. Chernoff,

I have recently received your motion to quash. I can tell that your client, Jason Leiderman, spent a lot of time preparing the exhibits and arguments for you - his finger prints are all over this. However,

beforehand you really should have complied with Ariz. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(C), which requires you to make an effort to resolve a discovery dispute prior to your seeking court intervention or sanctions, before going to all of this trouble.

Needless to say, I would have been very receptive to you had you done so, even though you failed to lodge an objection within the 14 day time period, as required Rule 45(c)(5)(A)(ii). I know for an absolute fact that GoDaddy notified the account holder (your client) the very next day on August 12th. So there can be no claim on your part that your client didn't know. As for whether or not I used the correct form for the subpoena, well that doesn't seem to matter much since your client's "privacy rights" were adequately protected.

I also know that your client James McGibney and his attorney Jason (Jay) Leiderman are a couple of lunatics who you should stay very far away from if you value your good name and law practice. 

In case you did not know, they are in the habit of buying up websites in the names of people they do not like and then posting defamatory content about them, as they did in this case here involving a very good and personal friend of mine. Jeffrey Dorrell is a very well respected attorney from Houston, TX. You can learn about him here: http://www.hanszenlaporte.com/about-us/jeffrey-l-dorrell/

Attached are some documents filed in federal court that show the kind of people whom you are working for.

Let me ask you this, sir: How would you like it if someone posted YOUR personal information online, along with photos of yourself, your family members, your home address, and then set about trying to ruin your law practice? In spending a few minutes Googling you I found that you enjoy a pretty respectable reputation as a real estate and commercial litigation guy who is just starting up his own law firm. But how many clicks on a mouse would it take for all that to be gone, so that when someone Googles your name all they see is defamatory crap about you being a drunken idiot with a gambling problem who dips in to the firm's Client Trust Fund account to fuel his thirst for the slots at the nearest Indian casino? And who also rapes young boys in his spare time?

Would you like that to appear every time someone Googles you or your law firm's name, sir? Because these are the kinds of lunatics you jumped into bed with. They do this sort of thing for fun.

McGibney and Leiderman have tried to take me on in Texas court and in federal court, and in some stupid little county court in San Jose. They are facing $1 million in anti-SLAPP court sanctions in Texas, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction & anti-SLAPP violations in federal court, and there is a motion for new trial pending in their little restraining order case (which is stupid because it can't be enforced outside of California anyways).

Leiderman then decided to go on Twitter and blast out defamatory statements about me.

Mr. Chernoff is that something that an ethical lawyer should do? Is that something that YOU would do? That fact that you would not do such a thing because it not only isn't ethical but it's stupid explains why the State Bar of California recently opened up an active investigation into Mr. Leiderman's conduct here.

However, Leiderman did not just call me a convicted sex offender. He also said that I had murdered several police officers and was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang (which makes it a habit of murdering police officers and other governmental officials). Leiderman also said that I went to prison for sexual assault. Oh, and did I tell you that he claimed that I murdered people, too? And had sex with my daughter? And got her pregnant? Yeah, he said all that, too.

His client James McGibney has made the same defamatory claims as well, and then some!

With one lawsuit per Tweet or internet posting, how many lawsuits do you think I can file? And in how many different jurisdictions (since it is quite possible that I was in different locations when they said these things)?

The "exhibits" you attached to your motion are irrelevant and far more prejudicial then probative. And you know as well as I do that Arizona's vexatious litigant statue doesn't even go into effect until January 1, 2015. And even if it was in effect, it would not apply to me. My case has an arguable basis in fact and/or in law, and that is the only burden that I have to meet to survive any kind of challenge.

Your claim for $5,000 in sanctions is ridiculous and is beyond the Justice Court's ability to grant (plus, it would be interlocutory and only subject to payment (1) when the case was totally over with and (2) only if I felt like paying it). You could have avoided yourself a whole lot of time, trouble and (allegedly) $5,000 in expenses had you just followed the Rules and made an attempt to confer with me about this.

HOWEVER, what I am going to do (and have probably already done by the time you get this) is to amend my lawsuit to add additional defamation claims, as well as list John Doe defendants as being involved in a conspiracy with Leiderman to try to harm my legal representation by defaming me, defaming Mr. Dorrell, and generally acting like a bunch of childish assholes, and that the defendants have a practice of buying up websites to harass people and this JeffreyDorrell.com website is just another example, as well as an effort to harm my legal representation.

Now you get to decide if you want me to be your tar baby and to be involved in what will likely be very protracted and very expensive litigation. Do you wish to fully involve your law firm and your credibility for the sake of a lunatic and a guy who runs a revenge porn / blackmail website who is fast running out of money and who likely won't be able to pay any of your legal expenses?

If you think for an instant that I am making any of this shit up, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Dorrell, whom I have copied in this email. You may also want to check out PACER so you can follow along with what is going on in the federal case, too.

You also might want to take a moment to consult with a

Tom Retzlaff
PO Box 46424
Phoenix, Arizona 85063-6424
(210) 317-9800
Received: from asp.reflexion.net (69.84.129.233) by remote.azfirm.net  (10.0.0.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.438.0; Fri, 19 Sep 2014  12:12:50 -0700
Received: (qmail 14256 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2014 19:12:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO rtc-fullnode-02.app.dca.reflexion.local)  (10.81.100.102) by 0 (rfx-qmail) with SMTP; 19 Sep 2014 19:12:47 -0000
Received: by rtc-fullnode-02.app.dca.reflexion.local     (Reflexion email security v7.30.7) with SMTP;         Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:12:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 18829 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2014 19:12:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO milter.aus.datafoundry.com) (209.99.124.132) by 0 (rfx-qmail) with SMTP; 19 Sep 2014 19:12:27 -0000 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1411153938-0575760b0c28ea160001-ijbYgT
Received: from texasnet.proxy1.mail.aus.datafoundry.com (texasnet.proxy1.mail.aus.datafoundry.com [209.99.125.96]) by milter.aus.datafoundry.com with ESMTP id lCaxcftpxTXzskOF; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:12:18 -0500 (CDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: retzlaff@texas.net X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 209.99.125.96
Received: from computerPC (ip70-162-219-14.ph.ph.cox.net [70.162.219.14]) by texasnet.proxy1.mail.aus.datafoundry.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8E82213B2;    Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:11:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Tom Retzlaff <retzlaff@texas.net>
To: <mchernoff@azfirm.net>
CC: Jeffrey Dorrell <jdorrell@hanszenlaporte.com>
Subject: Retzlaff v. Leiderman, Arrowhead Justice Court, case # CC2014-122228
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:11:36 -0700
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Retzlaff v. Leiderman, Arrowhead Justice Court, case # CC2014-122228
Message-ID: <001201cfd43d$891f30d0$9b5d9270$@texas.net>








The following email from September 23, 2014 was Attorney Mark Chernoff's response to Thomas Retzlaff and Attorney Jeffrey Dorrell. It was forwarded to Attorney Jay Leiderman from Attorney Mark Chernoff. Mr. Chernoff was representing a "Jane Doe" who is the owner of www.jeffreydorrell.com.

Mr. Retzlaff issued a subpoena to GoDaddy for the private ownership information for the domain www.jeffreydorrell.com  and for reasons still unknown, Mr. Retzlaff tied the subpoena into the lawsuit he filed against Attorney Jay Leiderman. Attorney Jeffrey Dorrell does not represent Mr. Retzlaff. After receiving the aforementioned email from Thomas Retzlaff, it is our understanding that Mr. Chernoff withdrew from the case due to safety concerns.



-------- Original message --------

From: Mark Chernoff [mailto:MChernoff@azfirm.net]

Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:13 AM

To: Tom Retzlaff

Cc: Jeffrey Dorrell

Subject: RE: Retzlaff v. Leiderman, Arrowhead Justice Court, case # CC2014-122228



Dear Mr. Retzlaff:

Your email is cutoff at the end. The concluding sentence is, "You also might want to take a moment to consult with a" It appears you had something more to say. I think it makes sense for me to consider and possibly respond to your email as a complete document. Please either resend it or let me know what the remainder of the email was supposed to say.

In addition, I note that Mr. Dorrell is copied, but is not your attorney of record in this matter. If he is representing you in this case, please let me know and I will communicate directly with him.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mark D. Chernoff






The following email from October 6, 2014 was forwarded to Attorney Jay Leiderman from Attorney Mark Chernoff. Mr. Chernoff was representing a "Jane Doe" who is the owner of www.jeffreydorrell.com. Mr. Retzlaff issued a subpoena to GoDaddy for the private ownership information for the domain www.jeffreydorrell.com and for reasons still unknown, Mr. Retzlaff tied the subpoena into the lawsuit he filed against Attorney Jay Leiderman. Attorney Jeffrey Dorrell does not represent Mr. Retzlaff. This was Thomas Retzlaff's response to Attorney Mark Chernoff once he became aware that Mr. Chernoff withdrew from the case. Once again, he copies Attorney Jeffrey Dorrell in Texas.

-------- Original message --------

From: Tom Retzlaff [mailto:retzlaff@texas.net]

Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 2:52 PM

To: Mark Chernoff Cc: Jeffrey Dorrell

Subject: Retzlaff v Leiderman -- Arrowhead Justice Court

Importance: High

Dear Sir,

I have received your motion to withdraw. I must say that I am very concerned about whether or not you have acted properly in this matter. Specifically, the fact that you claim to be representing a client you label as Non-Party Doe when, in fact, we both know that your client is actually a party to this case. Right?

Doesn't it seem just a bit dishonest, sir? While I can understand the desire to protect the attorney-client relationship, you have a much larger duty to the Court and to the public not to lie in the papers that you file.

Since your clients are Jay Leiderman & James McGibney, one can also make the argument that, by virtue of the filing of your motion to quash, your client has made an appearance and is, thus, before the court voluntarily without my having to serve them with process. Right?

A lawyer has the duty of absolute candor with the court and with opposing parties, and to the public at large. I would like you to please rethink your position and to disclose to the court the actual identity of your supposed Non-Party Doe client.

Or is this a conversation that I should be having with the State Bar?

In a couple of days this will be going public in a very big way.



Tom Retzlaff
PO Box 46424
Phoenix, Arizona 85063-6424
(210) 317-9800

About ZiLe Ohai

Hi, yes it is really me, ZiLe!

Tag Cloud

Flash Labels by Blogger Widgets

Copyright © 2015

Distributed By Blogger Template | Designed By Templatezy