Does anyone know?

[bfrankdc]

The relationship or facts behind:

 

94-5505 Jonathan R. Rees vs. Bianca L. Reyes

[bfrankdc]

Or this one?

 

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn...ION=95-2000.01A

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

EX. REL. JONATHAN R. REES,

 

Plaintiff, Appellant,

 

v.

 

YOLANDA LUGO-RAMIREZ, ET AL.,

 

Defendants, Appellees.

 

 

____________________

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

 

[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]

 

____________________

 

Before

 

Selya, Cyr and Lynch,

Circuit Judges.

______________

 

____________________

 

Johathan R. Rees on brief pro se.

________________

 

 

Per Curiam. Appellant's argument that the district

 

court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing which

 

it had scheduled on demand by appellant and which appellant

 

then refused to attend, is frivolous. After a careful

 

review, the judgment of the district court is affirmed for

 

substantially the reasons stated in its order of July 7,

 

1995. See Loc. R. 27.1.

___

 

 

The relationship or facts behind:

 

94-5505 Jonathan R. Rees vs. Bianca L. Reyes

[grim]

According the Pacer system we have in our offices, Rees v. Lugo was a case where Rees sued Lugo and others over some breach, Rees won on a summary judgment without a hearing although he requested one and they appealed as he wanted to argue for punitive damages not just what he got.

 

The other case listed by Bfrankdc does exist under that federal court case number.

 

 

 

Or this one?

 

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn...ION=95-2000.01A

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

EX. REL. JONATHAN R. REES,

 

Plaintiff, Appellant,

 

v.

 

YOLANDA LUGO-RAMIREZ, ET AL.,

 

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

 

[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]

 

____________________

 

Before

 

Selya, Cyr and Lynch,

Circuit Judges.

______________

 

____________________

 

Johathan R. Rees on brief pro se.

________________

Per Curiam. Appellant\'s argument that the district

 

court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing which

 

it had scheduled on demand by appellant and which appellant

 

then refused to attend, is frivolous. After a careful

 

review, the judgment of the district court is affirmed for

 

substantially the reasons stated in its order of July 7,

 

1995. See Loc. R. 27.1.

___

[bfrankdc]

The case as presented says that Rees filed a frivolous appeal. Clearly Rees would not have filed an appeal if he was victorious in Summary Judgement. Rees was the instigator of the appeal here, not Lugo, as you claim.

 

B. Frank

 

According the Pacer system we have in our offices, Rees v. Lugo was a case where Rees sued Lugo and others over some breach, Rees won on a summary judgment without a hearing although he requested one and they appealed as he wanted to argue for punitive damages not just what he got.

 

The other case listed by Bfrankdc does exist under that federal court case number.

[grim]

What I read was the court awarded Rees the basic damages he asked for but not the punitive damages so Rees appealed to get those punitive damages but his appeal was denied and he had to accept the judgment in his favor for just real damages.

 

 

 

The case as presented says that Rees filed a frivolous appeal. Clearly Rees would not have filed an appeal if he was victorious in Summary Judgement. Rees was the instigator of the appeal here, not Lugo, as you claim.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

Try District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

 

 

The other case listed by Bfrankdc does exist under that federal court case number.

[grim]

That appeal was up at the US Court of Appeals in Boston not the one here in DC.

 

Rees does not have any cases at the US Court of Appeals in DC.

 

What cases I did find in DC about Rees were more favorable to him than against him.

 

 

Try District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

[bfrankdc]

Try Googling "Jonathan R Rees" and you will find the citation right there in the DC Court of Appeals. I am sorry you can't find it with your Pacer and other advanced legal tools.

 

This is an old case, so the Clintonian "Rees does not have" statement doesn't apply. As evidenced by the citation, the case in question is over a decade old.

 

B. Frank

 

That appeal was up at the US Court of Appeals in Boston not the one here in DC.

 

Rees does not have any cases at the US Court of Appeals in DC.

 

What cases I did find in DC about Rees were more favorable to him than against him.

[grim]

Sorry, I thought you meant US Court of Appeals for DC.

 

The only case I found for Rees at the DC Court of Appeals was in 1991 not 1995.

 

 

Try Googling \"Jonathan R Rees\" and you will find the citation right there in the DC Court of Appeals. I am sorry you can\'t find it with your Pacer and other advanced legal tools.

 

This is an old case, so the Clintonian \"Rees does not have\" statement doesn\'t apply. As evidenced by the citation, the case in question is over a decade old.

 

B. Frank

[truthseeker]

Sorry, I thought you meant US Court of Appeals for DC.

 

The only case I found for Rees at the DC Court of Appeals was in 1991 not 1995.

 

 

Answer H!

 

Revising his original statement.

 

Example: "When I said they were printed in the Dominican Republic, but later said it was Puerto Rico, what I MEANT was they were printed by a Puerto Rican company that owns a facility in the DR."

 

See also "I know I wrote that I was the owner of Au Pied Cochon and am supporting Rees. And I realize now that Au Pied Cochon doesn't exist anymore. But, um, see, I also own another restaurant which has a different name and is located somewhere else...but technically I WAS the owner of Au Pied Cochon."

[bfrankdc]

See my initial post....the case in question is from 1994. Blanca Reyes.

 

That is three separate cases I have found with Mr. Rees as a litigant, along with the Kolp case. I am sure there are others. No wonder Mr. Rees claims to have such legal experience.

 

So what was the 1991 case? That makes 4!

 

B. Frank

 

Sorry, I thought you meant US Court of Appeals for DC.

 

The only case I found for Rees at the DC Court of Appeals was in 1991 not 1995.

[grim]

I see your point.

 

 

Answer H!

 

Revising his original statement.

 

Example: \"When I said they were printed in the Dominican Republic, but later said it was Puerto Rico, what I MEANT was they were printed by a Puerto Rican company that owns a facility in the DR.\"

 

See also \"I know I wrote that I was the owner of Au Pied Cochon and am supporting Rees. And I realize now that Au Pied Cochon doesn\'t exist anymore. But, um, see, I also own another restaurant which has a different name and is located somewhere else...but technically I WAS the owner of Au Pied Cochon.\"

 

 

That 1991, case surrounded a claim that Rees had fathered a child with that woman but when that woman refused to submit to DNA testing after hearing after hearing going on for years, Magistrate Judge Dennis Doyle dismissed the matter in 1998. The DC Court of Appeals seems to have been asked to rule on a matter of law for purposes of instructing the lower court on what direction it should take.

 

 

See my initial post....the case in question is from 1994. Blanca Reyes.

 

That is three separate cases I have found with Mr. Rees as a litigant, along with the Kolp case. I am sure there are others. No wonder Mr. Rees claims to have such legal experience.

 

So what was the 1991 case? That makes 4!

 

B. Frank

[truthseeker]

I see your point.

That 1991, case surrounded a claim that Rees had fathered a child with that woman but when that woman refused to submit to DNA testing after hearing after hearing going on for years, Magistrate Judge Dennis Doyle dismissed the matter in 1998. The DC Court of Appeals seems to have been asked to rule on a matter of law for purposes of instructing the lower court on what direction it should take.

 

Wow, Grim Reaper! You seem to know QUITE a lot about Jonathan Rees. Tell us, you bright and engaging thing, how it is that you're so intimately acquainted with his biography?

[grim]

I know because I am a legal assistant and looking this stuff up is easy if you work where is have access to Pacer and West Law.

 

 

Wow, Grim Reaper! You seem to know QUITE a lot about Jonathan Rees. Tell us, you bright and engaging thing, how it is that you\'re so intimately acquainted with his biography?

[truthseeker]

I know because I am a legal assistant and looking this stuff up is easy if you work where is have access to Pacer and West Law.

 

 

Interesting. According to Rees' now-defunct website, he worked for many years as a legal assistant.

 

 

This is just assinine. Who do you think you're fooling, dude?

[grim]

Jesus Christ, this city is overloaded with legal assistants and paralegal. Where the Hell have you been living dude?

 

 

Interesting. According to Rees\' now-defunct website, he worked for many years as a legal assistant.

This is just assinine. Who do you think you\'re fooling, dude?

[truthseeker]

Jesus Christ, this city is overloaded with legal assistants and paralegal. Where the Hell have you been living dude?

 

 

Yes, well, that certainly seems to explain it all away doesn't it.

 

Also, I'm not a dude. And you're not the Grim Reaper. You're the Hilarious Reaper! Thanks again for a night of absurdist humor, Chuckles.

[grim]

Dudette is that better.

 

 

Yes, well, that certainly seems to explain it all away doesn\'t it.

 

Also, I\'m not a dude. And you\'re not the Grim Reaper. You\'re the Hilarious Reaper! Thanks again for a night of absurdist humor, Chuckles.

[truthseeker]

Dudette is that better.

 

No, I prefer "Most Glorious Aetherial Being Who Deigns to Address Lowly Corrupt Candidates. "

 

Your command of punctuation is as highly-evolved as your rhetorical skills, your political acumen, and your moral sense.

 

And off I go, on a beam of light.

[grim]

Good luck on that mission but I suspect if we look hard, they are all corrupt in one form or another and it is for us to chose the lesser devil.

 

 

No, I prefer \"Most Glorious Aetherial Being Who Deigns to Address Lowly Corrupt Candidates. \"

 

Your command of punctuation is as highly-evolved as your rhetorical skills, your political acumen, and your moral sense.

 

And off I go, on a beam of light.

[bfrankdc]

But you are forgetting the self named company that has done federal filings since 1979. Of course, that one doesn't show up on the resume.

 

B. Frank

 

Interesting. According to Rees' now-defunct website, he worked for many years as a legal assistant.

This is just assinine. Who do you think you're fooling, dude?

[grim]

There are many companies that do federal filings.

 

 

But you are forgetting the self named company that has done federal filings since 1979. Of course, that one doesn\'t show up on the resume.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

I think you need a new Pacer system:

 

https://www.fastcase.com/Yahoo/Start.aspx?C...iateConst=Yahoo

 

602 A.2d 1137

 

Jonathan R. REES, Appellant, v. Blanca L. REYES, Appellee, a/k/a Blanca L.Rees.

 

No. 91-740.

 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

 

Argued December 11, 1991.

 

Decided February 14, 1992.

 

Appeal from the Superior Court, Cheryl M. Long, J.

 

Jonathan R. Rees, pro se.

 

Suzanne H. Jackson, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

 

Before ROGERS, Chief Judge, FARRELL, Associate Judge, and KERN, Senior Judge.

 

KERN, Senior Judge:

 

Appellee-mother in February, 1991, filed in the Arlington, Virginia court a petition for custody of the parties' child.1 Appellee was then living in Virginia, but had formerly resided in the District of Columbia with appellant-father. On March 14th, the Virginia court granted appellee temporary custody of the child. The Virginia court acknowledged, as the trial court here noted in its order now on appeal, that the issue of its ultimate jurisdiction was to be litigated.

 

Thereafter, appellant-father filed on March 20th in the trial court here a motion for temporary custody, as well as a complaint for (1) annulment of the parties' marriage and (2) award of the permanent custody of the child. Appellee responded with a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Virginia was the appropriate and convenient forum in which to litigate the issue of custody and that the interest of the child would best be served by proceeding in Virginia. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in May, heard argument on June 11th, and on June 28th, 1991, issued its order, which was accompanied by extensive findings of facts and conclusions of law.

 

The trial court denied appellant's motion for temporary custody, certified his annulment action to the trial court's Family Division, and dismissed the custody action on the ground that the Virginia court was the more appropriate forum for the determination of custody. Appellant does not contend (and, indeed, has provided no record for this court to consider such contention) that the court's findings lack support in the evidence. Rather, appellant's contention seems to be that the trial court's decision that the Arlington, Virginia court was the appropriate forum for custody determination under the particular circumstances runs afoul of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 ("PKPA") (28 U.S.C. § 1738A (1991 Repl.))2 and constitutes a precedent that thwarts the Congressional intent in enacting this particular legislation. We affirm.

 

The trial court determined in its findings of facts pursuant to the evidentiary hearing that on January 28, 1991, appellee-mother left the marital abode in the District of Columbia because of marital difficulties and, with her two children, moved to and established residence in Arlington, Virginia. The court pointed out in its conclusions that the Virginia court, in granting temporary custody of the parties' child to appellee-mother, was acting pursuant to a mandate from the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act ("UCCJA"),3 consistent with the PKPA,4 by exercising its emergency jurisdiction to make a temporary custody determination.

 

 

According the Pacer system we have in our offices, Rees v. Lugo was a case where Rees sued Lugo and others over some breach, Rees won on a summary judgment without a hearing although he requested one and they appealed as he wanted to argue for punitive damages not just what he got.

 

The other case listed by Bfrankdc does exist under that federal court case number.

[truthseeker]

Since both he and his friends have repeatedly assured us here that he's not been divorced, one wonders which of his marriages this refers to. I mean, they told us there were only ever two wives. So I guess it's either the one who passed away in 1998 or his current one.

 

But, oh, wait. The first one was, we've been repeatedly told, named "Maria Cisneros". Okay so logically it's not that one. And it can't be the current one, named Mindy Silverman-Rees, because they've assured us he married her in 2004.

 

It can't be that he's fabricated any of this, because his friends here assure us that he doesn't ever fabricate. So, wow. Golly. I guess it's another mystery for the ages. We'll just never solve it, I guess.

 

Another mystery for the ages: Why does the name of Mrs. Reyes' attorney in this case sound so familiar? Hm. I can't figure it out.

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gloverpark/m...ge/267?source=1

 

 

Interesting that it resembles the post below, too. Oh yeah. And that the IP address on the "Suzanne H. Jackson" post is 66.94.237.20, the same as several other posts favorable to rees on that board AND, back when IPs were publicly visible here, on this board too.

 

for example: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gloverpark/m...ge/259?source=1

 

 

See the "Multiple Alias Disorder" posts in this board's archives for the details.

 

 

Another enigma.

 

 

I think you need a new Pacer system:

 

https://www.fastcase.com/Yahoo/Start.aspx?C...iateConst=Yahoo

 

602 A.2d 1137

 

Jonathan R. REES, Appellant, v. Blanca L. REYES, Appellee, a/k/a Blanca L.Rees.

 

No. 91-740.

 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

 

Argued December 11, 1991.

 

Decided February 14, 1992.

 

Appeal from the Superior Court, Cheryl M. Long, J.

 

Jonathan R. Rees, pro se.

 

Suzanne H. Jackson, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

 

Before ROGERS, Chief Judge, FARRELL, Associate Judge, and KERN, Senior Judge.

 

KERN, Senior Judge:

 

Appellee-mother in February, 1991, filed in the Arlington, Virginia court a petition for custody of the parties' child.1 Appellee was then livin

[

[Sam Brooks Watch]

Is this case:

 

1. Jonathan R. Rees the candidate;

2. Jonathan R. Rees the business manager for Lyndon LaRouche or

3. Jonathan R. Rees the lawyer

 

Which one is it? Jonathan R. Rees the candidate was married to Maria Cisneros in 1973 and she died in June 1998 so this could not be Jonathan R. Rees the candidate and the public record shows that they lived at 235 East Green Valley Circle, Newark, Delaware and had a home also here in DC on Wisconsin Ave NW.

 

 

Since both he and his friends have repeatedly assured us here that he\\\\\\\'s not been divorced, one wonders which of his marriages this refers to. I mean, they told us there were only ever two wives. So I guess it\\\\\\\'s either the one who passed away in 1998 or his current one.

 

But, oh, wait. The first one was, we\\\\\\\'ve been repeatedly told, named \\\\\\\"Maria Cisneros\\\\\\\". Okay so logically it\\\\\\\'s not that one. And it can\\\\\\\'t be the current one, named Mindy Silverman-Rees, because they\\\\\\\'ve assured us he married her in 2004.

 

It can\\\\\\\'t be that he\\\\\\\'s fabricated any of this, because his friends here assure us that he doesn\\\\\\\'t ever fabricate. So, wow. Golly. I guess it\\\\\\\'s another mystery for the ages. We\\\\\\\'ll just never solve it, I guess.