NBC4 NEWS ON THE WARD 3 COUNCIL RACE

[JRR]

According to today’s early morning NBC news, there are about 6-7 people running for the ward 3 council seat and it will probably come down to whose names gets known most and not issues.

 

Kathy Patterson was briefly interviewed on the number of people seeking to succeed her and she agreed that name recognition by people who mostly do not pay attention to issues will decide who succeeds her.

 

I say three of the candidates have a strong campaign and the others very weak and/or small one.

 

Candidates Cheh and Gordon who are very decent people said that my distribution network is a force to reckon with and probably the other candidates cannot do what I have and that is, be able to reach all corners of ward 3.

 

Nobody has a guarantee of pulling this off and the number running will confuse voters if not maybe turn them off and that is why YOUR NAME may be worth more than where you stand on the issues.

 

No matter what, our race will be overshadowed by the mayor’s race and that will leave us to get our own recognition.

 

On the issue of the early smear campaign between Brooks and Rees, it was reported that smear campaigning is no stranger to Brooks as he did it before when he ran in 2004 and probably is behind or started it in his newest bid for office.

[tomsherwood]

NBC4 has NOT done a story on the Ward 3 council race. a previous posting said we have. We haven't.

--tom sherwood, nbc4.

[MissGloverPark]

Tom,

 

I too was watching your News this morning around 5:45 A.M., when NBC4 did in fact have Kathy Patterson on where she spoke of the need for more taxes and the ward race. It was a brief clip maybe no more than a minute at best.

 

Also the local ABC station more or less ran a similary clip with Patterson speaking a bit more to justify the need for more taxes for our schools.

 

Respectfully please go back and check as many in my office saw the same on NBC4....

 

 

NBC4 has NOT done a story on the Ward 3 council race. a previous posting said we have. We haven't.

--tom sherwood, nbc4.

[bfrankdc]

Mr. Sherwood,

 

It is truly an honor and pleasure to have you here at the Rees world of insanity. I have long enjoyed your reports on News4 and the NW Current. This is the only place where Mr. Rees and his aliases can be found because he has been banned or limited at just about every other place of note in DC Community Blogs and Listservs (Craigslist and DCist have banned him, yet he continues to attempt to post contrary to list owners wishes and rules for example), Yahoo deleted his DCWARD3 political board, eventhough Mr. Rees claims that he consulted the other candidates who all agreed to use their own resources to reach voters. (Where is Rees's if that is the case?)

 

You will see that our esteemed candidate has a tendancy to exagerate, or worse, simply make up facts as he goes along.

 

Of particular note is his ability to create new "characters" in his world all the time, who are able to "back up" his claims. The humor yesterday, of course is when he asked me what line of work I was in, and one of his alter egos chimed back that my response was vague, and countered with Mr. Rees's background as her own. 'Ooops, what alias am I using today' (says Mr. Rees)...how can I backtrack on this?

 

http://www.dcmessageboards.com/index.php?showtopic=7301 (Note the posts labelled around 10:30 AM -- the server clocks are off).

 

You will also note that a few of us have asked him to share with us facets of his professional and educational background as qualifications for being a councilman. To date, he has failed to provide verifiable acountings of such basic background material.

 

http://www.dcmessageboards.com/index.php?showtopic=7296&st=0

 

I am sure this person puts you in a tricky position. Any sort of attention gives him credibility, yet voters should know of his antics and potential instability.

 

I am also quite confident that before too long, they will accuse me of posting in your name.

 

Shrug.

 

B. Frank

 

NBC4 has NOT done a story on the Ward 3 council race. a previous posting said we have. We haven't.

--tom sherwood, nbc4.

Edited January 10, 2006 by bfrankdc

[JRR]

Tom Sherwood and I just got off the phone and he stated that the people who reported to me about what was said on NBC4 may have gotten mixed up on what was said on ABC7 as both ran a similiar story but ABC7 was more indept and touched upon the ward race.

 

 

Tom,

 

I too was watching your News this morning around 5:45 A.M., when NBC4 did in fact have Kathy Patterson on where she spoke of the need for more taxes and the ward race. It was a brief clip maybe no more than a minute at best.

 

Also the local ABC station more or less ran a similary clip with Patterson speaking a bit more to justify the need for more taxes for our schools.

 

Respectfully please go back and check as many in my office saw the same on NBC4....

 

 

Bfrank,

 

I only reported what others who watched the news this morning had stated to me in an emails and Tom and I spoke and he cleared matters up and it was obvious people were watching an interview of Patterson that was telecasted on NBC and ABC and got their channels mixed up.

 

Unlike Bfrank, if I am in error I will admit it and not be a arrogant snob like Bfrank is always being.

 

 

Mr. Sherwood,

 

It is truly an honor and pleasure to have you here at the Rees world of insanity. I have long enjoyed your reports on News4 and the NW Current. This is the only place where Mr. Rees and his aliases can be found because he has been banned or limited at just about every other place of note in DC Community Blogs and Listservs (Craigslist and DCist have banned him, yet he continues to attempt to post contrary to list owners wishes and rules for example), Yahoo deleted his DCWARD3 political board, eventhough Mr. Rees claims that he consulted the other candidates who all agreed to use their own resources to reach voters. (Where is Rees's if that is the case?)

 

You will see that our esteemed candidate has a tendancy to exagerate, or worse, simply make up facts as he goes along.

 

Of particular note is his ability to create new "characters" in his world all the time, who are able to "back up" his claims. The humor yesterday, of course is when he asked me what line of work I was in, and one of his alter egos chimed back that my response was vague, and countered with Mr. Rees's background as her own. 'Ooops, what alias am I using today' (says Mr. Rees)...how can I backtrack on this?

 

http://www.dcmessageboards.com/index.php?showtopic=7301 (Note the posts labelled around 10:30 AM -- the server clocks are off).

 

You will also note that a few of us have asked him to share with us facets of his professional and educational background as qualifications for being a councilman. To date, he has failed to provide verifiable acountings of such basic background material.

 

http://www.dcmessageboards.com/index.php?showtopic=7296&st=0

 

I am sure this person puts you in a tricky position. Any sort of attention gives him credibility, yet voters should know of his antics and potential instability.

 

I am also quite confident that before too long, they will accuse me of posting in your name.

 

Shrug.

 

B. Frank

[truthseeker]

Mr. Sherwood,

 

It is truly an honor and pleasure to have you here at the Rees world of insanity. This is the only place where Mr. Rees and his aliases can be found because he has been banned or limited at just about every other place of note in DC Community Blogs and Listservs (Craigslist and DCist have banned him, yet he continues to attempt to post contrary to list owners wishes and rules for example), Yahoo deleted his DCWARD3 political board, eventhough Mr. Rees claims that he consulted the other candidates who all agreed to use their own resources to reach voters. (Where is Rees's if that is the case?)

 

You will see that our esteemed candidate has a tendancy to exagerate, or worse, simply make up facts as he goes along.

 

Of particular note is his ability to create new "characters" in his world all the time, who are able to "back up" his claims. The humor yesterday, of course is when he asked me what line of work I was in, and one of his alter egos chimed back that my response was vague, and countered with Mr. Rees's background as her won. Ooops, what alias am I using today (says Mr. Rees)...how can I backtrack on this?

 

http://www.dcmessageboards.com/index.php?showtopic=7301 (Note the posts labelled around 10:30 AM -- the server clocks are off).

 

You will also note that a few of us have asked him to share with us facets of his professional and educational background as qualifications for being a councilman. To date, he has failed to provide verifiable acountings of such basic background material.

 

http://www.dcmessageboards.com/index.php?showtopic=7296&st=0

 

I am sure this person puts you in a tricky position. Any sort of attention gives him credibility, yet voters should know of his antics and potential instability.

 

I am also quite confident that before too long, they will accuse me of posting in your name.

 

Shrug.

 

B. Frank

 

 

Finally, a journalist!. I BEG of you, Tom. Get someone to dig into this guy's past, including his compulsive on-line activity (I'm sure a couple of folks here can provide plenty of screen shots and link to some of his more extreme on-line activity...including libel of private citizens, bizarre hate speech, etc.) not to mention his alleged resume. Look into his involvement with the court system (and possibly the mental health system) here and elsewhere. And remember, he's slippery as hell. He'll have a ready, though ultimately flimsy, excuse for every lie you catch him in.

 

Most importantly, he'll try to tell you that the people who challenge him on-line (Here, on the only site he's still allowed) are all Sam Brooks or people who support him. It's simply not true.

 

It's time the local news media looked into this. Of course, it's entirely possible here in the Reeseverse that you're not actually Tom Sherwood and R is up to something here. Ya never know.

Edited January 10, 2006 by truthseeker

[bfrankdc]

OK, well here is what WJLA/NewsChannel8 Reported:

 

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0106/292363.html

 

Most of the facts as represented on this thread are simply not accurate.

 

Mr. Rees, maybe you need a better group of advisors and media specialists to report to you?

 

B. Frank

 

Tom Sherwood and I just got off the phone and he stated that the people who reported to me about what was said on NBC4 may have gotten mixed up on what was said on ABC7 as both ran a similiar story but ABC7 was more indept and touched upon the ward race.

Bfrank,

 

I only reported what others who watched the news this morning had stated to me in an emails and Tom and I spoke and he cleared matters up and it was obvious people were watching an interview of Patterson that was telecasted on NBC and ABC and got their channels mixed up.

 

[factchecker2]

I'm also pleased that a reporter may be interested in Mr. Rees. There's a lot to be said, starting with Jonathan Rees's own Yahoo Profile: http://profiles.yahoo.com/jrrees_1955

 

Then there was the bizarre thing he did during his divorce: Jonathan Rees sent a "revolting" (a judge's word) email to every judge on the DC Superior Court. (The American Lawyer article about this is attached.)

 

His postings on places like DCist, www.dcist.com, and Craig's List are truly bizarre.

 

Rees has a vague employment history and even vaguer educational background.

 

Rees' own campaign website is, well, not very professional: www.rees-for-citycouncil.com

 

Why should somebody do a story on Jonathan Rees? There are two good reasons. First, he's an interesting character, who has put himself in the public's eye. Second, he is a distraction. As interesting as Rees may be, he's not a realistic candidate, and only serves to distract from the real issues and real candidates for City Council in Ward 3.

-------------

 

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.

[MissGloverPark]

Both Mr. Rees and Mr. Sherwood are correct.

 

What transpired was that (the news anchor said) the following:

 

As it concerns the DC City Council:

 

1. Some council members will not be running again in 2006;

 

2. Some will be running for other positions;

 

3. The ward 3 race is heating up with about five candidates; and

 

4. Yesterday Tom Sherwood caught up with ward 3 council member Kathy Patterson who is running for the chair and talked to her about the heated ward 3 race, taxes and our schools.

 

Then they broke away to the interview clip between Sherwood and Patterson where the issue discussed was only the tax issue as it concerns our schools and not the ward 3 race.

 

This is what transpired.

 

Thus Mr. Rees was not misinformed because that newscast did state what was said but maybe he should have been told who said it and in what order.

 

I think earlier it was already proven that the Mr. Rees people speak of in that Superior Court case was not our candidate Rees but another Jonathan Rees who is actually two years younger. Nice try **smile** but intelligent people are not buying and I think Ferguson Evans who I know well and has worked for poor Hispanics assures others wrong Mr. Rees!!!!!!

 

 

 

I'm also pleased that a reporter may be interested in Mr. Rees. There's a lot to be said, starting with Jonathan Rees's own Yahoo Profile: http://profiles.yahoo.com/jrrees_1955

 

Then there was the bizarre thing he did during his divorce: Jonathan Rees sent a "revolting" (a judge's word) email to every judge on the DC Superior Court. (The American Lawyer article about this is attached.)

 

His postings on places like DCist, www.dcist.com, and Craig's List are truly bizarre.

 

Rees has a vague employment history and even vaguer educational background.

 

Rees' own campaign website is, well, not very professional: www.rees-for-citycouncil.com

 

Why should somebody do a story on Jonathan Rees? There are two good reasons. First, he's an interesting character, who has put himself in the public's eye. Second, he is a distraction. As interesting as Rees may be, he's not a realistic candidate, and only serves to distract from the real issues and real candidates for City Council in Ward 3.

-------------

 

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.

 

 

In one of the Yahoo group rooms this week, Rees responded to one of the phony Yahoo profiles that others erected to insult him.

 

Rees descbribed to others what happened to him when he began becoming active in suppporting gay rights and same sex marriages.

 

This is what he wrote:

 

When I started being active in supporting gay rights years ago, I

started receiving hateful emails from people calling me a FAG LOVER,

FUDGE PACKER, SWORD SWOLLOWER and you name it. The hateful email came

often and the net result was > http://profiles.yahoo.com/jrrees_1955.

 

This profile attacking me funny as it sounds was erected by a so

called born-again-Christian who never stopped letting up that my

support for gay rights along with others was destroying the moral

fiber of America.

 

 

Thank you

 

 

BFRANCK IS A LIAR IN MY BOOK AS A WHILE BACK HE SAID WAS A MAN AND THEN RECENTLY HE SAID HE WAS A WOMAN...People should not ignore the changing personality.

 

Whether it is Bfrank, Truthseeker or Factchecker; They are one in the same of you follow the writing style and the fact they overlap each other on what they post and are never online at the same time if you follow here who is online reading.

 

 

I'm also pleased that a reporter may be interested in Mr. Rees. There's a lot to be said, starting with Jonathan Rees's own Yahoo Profile: http://profiles.yahoo.com/jrrees_1955

 

Then there was the bizarre thing he did during his divorce: Jonathan Rees sent a "revolting" (a judge's word) email to every judge on the DC Superior Court. (The American Lawyer article about this is attached.)

 

His postings on places like DCist, www.dcist.com, and Craig's List are truly bizarre.

 

Rees has a vague employment history and even vaguer educational background.

 

Rees' own campaign website is, well, not very professional: www.rees-for-citycouncil.com

 

Why should somebody do a story on Jonathan Rees? There are two good reasons. First, he's an interesting character, who has put himself in the public's eye. Second, he is a distraction. As interesting as Rees may be, he's not a realistic candidate, and only serves to distract from the real issues and real candidates for City Council in Ward 3.

-------------

 

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.

[bfrankdc]

Very convenient, except that "your candidate", Mr. Rees, reported the following:

_____________

"According to today’s early morning NBC news, there are about 6-7 people running for the ward 3 council seat and it will probably come down to whose names gets known most and not issues.

 

Kathy Patterson was briefly interviewed on the number of people seeking to succeed her and she agreed that name recognition by people who mostly do not pay attention to issues will decide who succeeds her.

 

I say three of the candidates have a strong campaign and the others very weak and/or small one.

 

Candidates Cheh and Gordon who are very decent people said that my distribution network is a force to reckon with and probably the other candidates cannot do what I have and that is, be able to reach all corners of ward 3.

 

Nobody has a guarantee of pulling this off and the number running will confuse voters if not maybe turn them off and that is why YOUR NAME may be worth more than where you stand on the issues.

 

No matter what, our race will be overshadowed by the mayor’s race and that will leave us to get our own recognition.

 

On the issue of the early smear campaign between Brooks and Rees, it was reported that smear campaigning is no stranger to Brooks as he did it before when he ran in 2004 and probably is behind or started it in his newest bid for office."

______________

With the exception of a very minor allusion to the campaign, the rest it Mr. Rees's conjecture. The thrust of the news is the school funding issue. There is a huge difference in conjecture and representing that a respected journalist actually reported something. If you and your candidate can't get that, then I am sorry.

 

On the other, where did I ever say I was a woman? Please provide a link, because, like all the other times and places where you allege things about me, this simply has NEVER happened.

 

 

B. Frank

 

Both Mr. Rees and Mr. Sherwood are correct.

 

What transpired was that (the news anchor said) the following:

 

As it concerns the DC City Council:

 

1. Some council members will not be running again in 2006;

 

2. Some will be running for other positions;

 

3. The ward 3 race is heating up with about five candidates; and

 

4. Yesterday Tom Sherwood caught up with ward 3 council member Kathy Patterson who is running for the chair and talked to her about the heated ward 3 race, taxes and our schools.

 

Then they broke away to the interview clip between Sherwood and Patterson where the issue discussed was only the tax issue as it concerns our schools and not the ward 3 race.

 

This is what transpired.

 

Thus Mr. Rees was not misinformed because that newscast did state what was said but maybe he should have been told who said it and in what order.

 

Whether it is Bfrank, Truthseeker or Factchecker; They are one in the same of you follow the writing style and the fact they overlap each other on what they post and are never online at the same time if you follow here who is online reading.

[JRR]

Bfrank,

 

First off, you are a chronic liar.

 

Second you spend way too much time here on the net researching and search and most information you report is grossly inaccurate and sometimes deliberate.

 

Third, I agree that you are probably using many names here and you have in other forums.

 

Fourth, you have gone way over the line in what you ask of me which is not required to run for office and none of your damn business.

 

Last, nobody spends months on end pursuing a candidate unless they are one of the opponents or works for one.

 

Your obsession with me is highly abnormal and you should be ignored until you identify who you are, explain your months of obsessively pursuing me from forum to forum as I think everybody else must wonder who you are as you are not asking any of the other candidates for the same.

 

The bottom line here is, you were not present when I have met with the other candidates as we do speak without Sam Brooks around as we do not find him worthy of our time and I know that deeply upsets you and part of the reason your persist and you are not privy to emails I get from around the ward and thus never presume you know what has been said.

 

In other words, get a life!

 

 

Very convenient, except that \"your candidate\", Mr. Rees, reported the following:

_____________

\"According to today’s early morning NBC news, there are about 6-7 people running for the ward 3 council seat and it will probably come down to whose names gets known most and not issues.

 

Kathy Patterson was briefly interviewed on the number of people seeking to succeed her and she agreed that name recognition by people who mostly do not pay attention to issues will decide who succeeds her.

 

I say three of the candidates have a strong campaign and the others very weak and/or small one.

 

Candidates Cheh and Gordon who are very decent people said that my distribution network is a force to reckon with and probably the other candidates cannot do what I have and that is, be able to reach all corners of ward 3.

 

Nobody has a guarantee of pulling this off and the number running will confuse voters if not maybe turn them off and that is why YOUR NAME may be worth more than where you stand on the issues.

 

No matter what, our race will be overshadowed by the mayor’s race and that will leave us to get our own recognition.

 

On the issue of the early smear campaign between Brooks and Rees, it was reported that smear campaigning is no stranger to Brooks as he did it before when he ran in 2004 and probably is behind or started it in his newest bid for office.\"

______________

With the exception of a very minor allusion to the campaign, the rest it Mr. Rees\'s conjecture. The thrust of the news is the school funding issue. There is a huge difference in conjecture and representing that a respected journalist actually reported something. If you and your candidate can\'t get that, then I am sorry.

 

On the other, where did I ever say I was a woman? Please provide a link, because, like all the other times and places where you allege things about me, this simply has NEVER happened.

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

Mr. Rees,

 

Unlike you (where it has been proven by DCist -- refer to the archives which I have posted here), I do not post under multiple aliases, but rather only use my name, which is B. Frank. In the past two days, you have used multiple aliases here, by your own admission.

 

You don't think that employment history and educational background are vital pieces of information to which voters are entitled when considering their candidate?

 

What misinformation have I posted? Please provide details.

 

Laughing out loud at the concept of obesessions coming from your typing fingers, given the number of posts that you have made, just here, in the past 24 hours.

 

I don't give a rat's behind about Mr. Brooks.

 

B. Frank

 

Bfrank,

 

First off, you are a chronic liar.

 

Second you spend way too much time here on the net researching and search and most information you report is grossly inaccurate and sometimes deliberate.

 

Third, I agree that you are probably using many names here and you have in other forums.

 

Fourth, you have gone way over the line in what you ask of me which is not required to run for office and none of your damn business.

 

Last, nobody spends months on end pursuing a candidate unless they are one of the opponents or works for one.

 

Your obsession with me is highly abnormal and you should be ignored until you identify who you are, explain your months of obsessively pursuing me from forum to forum as I think everybody else must wonder who you are as you are not asking any of the other candidates for the same.

 

The bottom line here is, you were not present when I have met with the other candidates as we do speak without Sam Brooks around as we do not find him worthy of our time and I know that deeply upsets you and part of the reason your persist and you are not privy to emails I get from around the ward and thus never presume you know what has been said.

 

In other words, get a life!

Edited January 10, 2006 by bfrankdc

[bfrankdc]

I cannot believe I spent the time to do this, but here is but a small sample of what I found, thanks to DC Pages:

 

Jason Rees

12/26/2005

64.27.5.168

 

missgloverpark

1/8/2006

64.27.5.168

 

_____________________________________________

 

Jonathon Rees

10/20/2005

4.249.120.196

 

Jonathon Rees

9/16/2005

4.429.114.203

 

jrrees2006

10/21/2005

4.249.111.21

4.249.114.197

 

Jason Rees

12/20/2005

4.249.120.122

 

S. Jackson

10/9/2005

4.249.114.150

 

Angela Biddy

10/9/2005

4.249.120.203

 

Lester Graham

10/8/2005

4.249.117.63

 

NikDix

8/21/2005

4.249.117.40

 

Mindy

9/1/2005

4.249.117.209

 

Mindy

10/6/2005

4.249.114.179

 

Hector Cruz

10/8/2005

4.249.120.206

 

Mindy Silverman

6/24/2005

4.249.111.214

 

Cindy Jenkins

8/24/2005

4.249.117.12

 

Linda Spector

10/8/2005

4.249.117.63

 

Margie Clay

9/16/2005

4.249.117.147

 

Guest_Alex

9/1/2005

4.249.222.241

 

Juan Antonio Sanchez

8/24/2005

4.249.117.12

 

Gabriella Rees

10/18/2005

4.249.117.75

 

Joanne Kaurfman

10/19/2005

4.249.114.252

 

Josh Lambert

10/19/2005

4.249.114.252

 

Kathy Patterson

10/11/2005

4.249.114.172

 

Kathleen Roddy

6/16/2005

4.249.120.106

 

Jonathon Rees

10/16/2005

4.249.111.217

 

James Ray Smith

12/31/2005

4.249.120.126

 

missgloverpark

4.249.117.105 (1/3/2006)

4.249.117.190 (1/6/2006)

 

 

Tammy Bresloff

1/5/2006

4.249.117.177

 

__________________________

 

jrrees

10/28/2005

138.88.109.176

 

Rapmasterjohnny

12/20/2005

138.88.72.151

 

Rapmasterjohnny

11/15/2005

138.88.27.191

 

CUMES

11/21/2005

138.88.67.17

 

Roddy

10/24/2005

138.88.107.240

 

Roddy

10/25/2005

138.88.170.38

 

Roddy

10/24/2005

138.88.107.240

 

pitts

10/25/2005

138.88.41.170

 

__________________________

 

I hope everyone can now see the proof in the pudding. Unless that is, this is one HUGE coincidence.

 

B. Frank

[JRR]

BRANKDC,

 

The foregoing is a bold face lie you are telling and please tell everyone where and how you came up with these IP addresses for all.

 

I am interested to hear your explanation.

 

 

I cannot believe I spent the time to do this, but here is but a small sample of what I found, thanks to DC Pages:

 

Jason Rees

12/26/2005

64.27.5.168

 

missgloverpark

1/8/2006

64.27.5.168

 

_____________________________________________

 

Jonathon Rees

10/20/2005

4.249.120.196

 

Jonathon Rees

9/16/2005

4.429.114.203

 

jrrees2006

10/21/2005

4.249.111.21

4.249.114.197

 

Jason Rees

12/20/2005

4.249.120.122

 

S. Jackson

10/9/2005

4.249.114.150

 

Angela Biddy

10/9/2005

4.249.120.203

 

Lester Graham

10/8/2005

4.249.117.63

 

NikDix

8/21/2005

4.249.117.40

 

Mindy

9/1/2005

4.249.117.209

 

Mindy

10/6/2005

4.249.114.179

 

Hector Cruz

10/8/2005

4.249.120.206

 

Mindy Silverman

6/24/2005

4.249.111.214

 

Cindy Jenkins

8/24/2005

4.249.117.12

 

Linda Spector

10/8/2005

4.249.117.63

 

Margie Clay

9/16/2005

4.249.117.147

 

Guest_Alex

9/1/2005

4.249.222.241

 

Juan Antonio Sanchez

8/24/2005

4.249.117.12

 

Gabriella Rees

10/18/2005

4.249.117.75

 

Joanne Kaurfman

10/19/2005

4.249.114.252

 

Josh Lambert

10/19/2005

4.249.114.252

 

Kathy Patterson

10/11/2005

4.249.114.172

 

Kathleen Roddy

6/16/2005

4.249.120.106

 

Jonathon Rees

10/16/2005

4.249.111.217

 

James Ray Smith

12/31/2005

4.249.120.126

 

missgloverpark

4.249.117.105 (1/3/2006)

4.249.117.190 (1/6/2006)

Tammy Bresloff

1/5/2006

4.249.117.177

 

__________________________

 

jrrees

10/28/2005

138.88.109.176

 

Rapmasterjohnny

12/20/2005

138.88.72.151

 

Rapmasterjohnny

11/15/2005

138.88.27.191

 

CUMES

11/21/2005

138.88.67.17

 

Roddy

10/24/2005

138.88.107.240

 

Roddy

10/25/2005

138.88.170.38

 

Roddy

10/24/2005

138.88.107.240

 

pitts

10/25/2005

138.88.41.170

 

__________________________

 

I hope everyone can now see the proof in the pudding. Unless that is, this is one HUGE coincidence.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

Pretty easy, actually,

 

For some reason, since yesterday, the IP address of each post started to appear in the upper right hand corner of each post. I went back to the summer and tracked the IP logs for the posts in question and compiled them into a single Word document. I then organized them by their natural root IP groupings. The result is what you see posted.

 

Luke Wilbur can easily verify this information.

 

Can you explain why these posts and "different aliases" appear under similar groupings of IP addresses? It seems way too convenient. It also fits the Modus Operendi of your postings on DCist, and probably other blogs and Listservs. I suspect that if one wanted to follow up with DCist Martin, or Craig Newmark (of Craig's List), or Yahoo, we will see a similar IP trail, but under still more aliases.

 

"missgloverpark" was able to identify my IP address, as well as the IP addresses of other posters here. Do you think "she" is the only one with access to such information?

 

I eagerly await your explanation.

 

B. Frank

 

BRANKDC,

 

The foregoing is a bold face lie you are telling and please tell everyone where and how you came up with these IP addresses for all.

 

I am interested to hear your explanation.

 

 

To further add, the IP addresses for "JRR" and "missgloverpark on THIS thread are both 141.156.148.191. This is true of the posts at 5:49 am, 6:30 am and 7:22 am. Is "missgloverpark" in your workplace, at your place of domocile, or otherwise on your computer? Did you not see her there within minutes of your posting?

 

OR, is the more plausible explanation true?

 

B. Frank

Edited January 10, 2006 by bfrankdc

[JRR]

I already answered this question.

 

Go back an read it.

 

Until you answer my question who are you, why are you online all the time and so on, do not ask any more questions of me as you are not as smart as you think you are and you have posted from the same IP address under the names Joe Kerr and Joe Deluth over in Yahoo.

 

 

 

 

 

BRANKDC,

 

The foregoing is a bold face lie you are telling and please tell everyone where and how you came up with these IP addresses for all.

 

I am interested to hear your explanation.

[bfrankdc]

Joe Kerr...that is pretty funny, but sorry, I cannot claim credit for either Joe.

 

B. Frank

 

I already answered this question.

 

Go back an read it.

 

Until you answer my question who are you, why are you online all the time and so on, do not ask any more questions of me as you are not as smart as you think you are and you have posted from the same IP address under the names Joe Kerr and Joe Deluth over in Yahoo.

[dice]

This is a very bad reporting of a public record.

 

I believe that this Rees guy is reported in 2005 as being 51 years old.

 

In 1999, this story reports that Rees was 43.

 

Let us do the mathematics.

 

REES

 

2005 51 years old

2004 50 years old

2003 49 Years old

2002 48 years old

2001 47 years old

2000 46 years old

1999 45 years old.

 

1 + 1 does not equal this Rees guy.

 

Now can we all move on to issues that are really important to all of us?

 

 

 

I'm also pleased that a reporter may be interested in Mr. Rees. There's a lot to be said, starting with Jonathan Rees's own Yahoo Profile: http://profiles.yahoo.com/jrrees_1955

 

Then there was the bizarre thing he did during his divorce: Jonathan Rees sent a "revolting" (a judge's word) email to every judge on the DC Superior Court. (The American Lawyer article about this is attached.)

 

His postings on places like DCist, www.dcist.com, and Craig's List are truly bizarre.

 

Rees has a vague employment history and even vaguer educational background.

 

Rees' own campaign website is, well, not very professional: www.rees-for-citycouncil.com

 

Why should somebody do a story on Jonathan Rees? There are two good reasons. First, he's an interesting character, who has put himself in the public's eye. Second, he is a distraction. As interesting as Rees may be, he's not a realistic candidate, and only serves to distract from the real issues and real candidates for City Council in Ward 3.

-------------

 

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.

[truthseeker]

This is a very bad reporting of a public record.

 

I believe that this Rees guy is reported in 2005 as being 51 years old.

 

In 1999, this story reports that Rees was 43.

 

Let us do the mathematics.

 

REES

 

2005 51 years old

2004 50 years old

2003 49 Years old

2002 48 years old

2001 47 years old

2000 46 years old

1999 45 years old.

 

1 + 1 does not equal this Rees guy.

 

Now can we all move on to issues that are really important to all of us?

 

 

 

You.

 

 

Are.

 

 

 

Rees.

[dice]

I am not Rees, do not want to be Rees but unless you have been living on another planet then everyone knows who he is.

 

My point is, nobody is interested in seeing you, Rees and all others engaging in this very stupid pissing contest and would rather see this board deal with issues that really affect us and our lives.

 

You, Rees and the others are taking away from the spirit of what this and other boards are all about and I would supect that everyone has no respect for you, Rees and the other buttholes doing this.

 

 

You.

Are.

Rees.

 

 

I am not Rees, do not want to be Rees but unless you have been living on another planet then everyone knows who he is.

 

My point is, nobody is interested in seeing you, Rees and all others engaging in this very stupid pissing contest and would rather see this board deal with issues that really affect us and our lives.

 

You, Rees and the others are taking away from the spirit of what this and other boards are all about and I would supect that everyone has no respect for you, Rees and the other buttholes doing this.

 

 

You.

Are.

Rees.