Alert! There is language in some of the screenshots on this post that some might find offensive.
(The court documents presented in this post via embedded links do not provide personal information. The civil restraining order case referenced in this post was denied and its denial affirmed on appeal. The Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Cross-Complaint is a public document available on ScribD. The subpoena was provided to me by a person whose Twitter handle is included. It does not provide personal information. )
There is a thread, and that thread first appeared in calendar year 2013 when certain bloggers were accused of being the “BGI,” (Black Grievance Industry). The persons who believe in that theory hold White Supremacy ideologies and have plans to destroy the “BGI” including what they call “social justice warriors”.
Picking up the thread …
On or about May 2, 2014, David Piercy filed a petition for a civil restraining order in the Fresno County Superior Court of California. The pages pertinent to this post can be seen here.
In it, he alleged that the respondent had 14 accomplices, and that the stalking and harassment was encouraged by attorneys Natalie Jackson and Benjamin Crump. As reported in Part 2, these are the two attorneys who, in October 2013, Annette Kelly posted on her blog of wanting to see how they could get them out of the practice of law.
Also in the petition, David Piercy made it known that he had obtained the names and addresses of 6 persons who he alleged were accomplices in harassment. This leads to 5 questions;
- These people are on Twitter and do not tweet using their real names. How did Piercy obtain not only their real names, but also their addresses?
- Why did Piercy obtain their names and addresses?
- With Piercy having the names and addresses of the 6, if he truly believed that they harassed him, why didn’t he file for civil restraining orders against them, rather than accusing the respondent of having accomplices?
- Did he allege that attorneys Jackson and Crump encouraged internet harassment to further the agenda to destroy the BGI by tainting their reputations?
- Was he hoping that had the court granted his request, that he would use it as intimidation and to cause the non-parties extreme emotional distress?
The court denied his petition for a plenary restraining order. Piercy appealed. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order that found that it was Piercy who harassed the respondent.
Similar Pattern Appears In October 2015
In January 2015, Kendrick Johnson’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against certain members of the Bell family and others, and on March 14, 2015, the Bell’s responded by filing a cross-complaint alleging defamation. The cross-complaint begins on page 22 of the 41-page document.
In or about July 2014, after a California Superior Court entered a restraining order against him, David Piercy made his Twitter account protected. A contempt of court proceeding is currently pending in that case alleging that Piercy violated the court’s order. On or about October 13, 2015, Twitter released Piercy’s account information for that proceeding. Piercy is the named defendant in that proceeding, and no motion to quash the subpoena was filed. Piercy then opened his Twitter account to the public and tweeted to certain individuals that the Bell’s subpoenaed their Twitter account information. He also tweeted to certain individuals that they were being sued.
Although I do not have screenshots of those tweets, many who witnessed it would be able to testify that they received the subject tweets from David Piercy, or that they read the subject tweets. I personally read the tweets. How did he obtain that knowledge? Is it true that he and/or others involved in destroying the “BGI” gave the Bell’s attorney Twitter handles to subpoena?
If it is true that the Bell’s attorney received Twitter handle information from others, is the Bell’s attorney knowledgeable that some of the handles are those of people who Piercy harassed prior to 18 months ago, and that Piercy listed in a May 2014 court proceeding unrelated to the death of Kendrick Johnson?
On Friday, October 30, 2015, approximately 22 people received notification from Twitter that their identifying information and locations were subpoenaed in the subject case.
The subpoena was issued on October 16, 2015 – 7 months after the Bell’s filed their cross-complaint, and 3 days after Twitter released Piercy’s account information in the contempt proceeding.
Among the 23 handles listed in the subpoena is the person who Piercy claimed that he had silenced since 2012. As reported in Part 1, silencing “BGI” social justice warriors is among the instructions on how to destroy them.
There is genuine concern that with the involvement of the internet extortionists, or what they allege as their involvement, that if Twitter gives their personal information to the Bell’s attorney that it will be given to the internet extortionists. It is already being represented on Twitter that the information returned by Twitter in response to the subpoena will be made public.
Twitter Handle @NavyDad0007
That handle is one of the 23 in the subpoena issued by the Bell’s attorney. It is also one of the handles that Piercy listed in his May 2, 2014 restraining order petition. In May 2014, the same month that David Piercy filed a petition for a civil restraining order, Annette Kelly, on her blog, opened a password protected post with “NavyDad0007” as its title. The password protected post was not FOR NavyDad0007 but rather, ABOUT NavyDad0007.
If NavyDad0007 desires, he might come here and share how, around the same time as Annette’s password protected post was created, that he put forth efforts to have Facebook remove a page where the content consisted of the personal information of himself and his family, including photos, photoshopped photos to degrade them, and his address.
NavyDad0007, along with others whose Twitter account information has been subpoenaed, continues to be harassed. Piercy misrepresents the subpoena as a lawsuit, or in the alternative, that their personal information from Twitter will lead to lawsuits. He has also threatened at least three of the persons whose handles are in the subpoena with criminal charges.
Twitter Handle @Poste112010
The handle @Poste112010 is that of Robin Postelll. Google “Robin Postell” and “Kendrick Johnson” and you will find that Vicki Pate, on her blog Re-newsit, wrote about Robin in April 2014. You will also find that in June 2014, someone on Topix alleged that Robin Postell also uses the name Phoebe Weatherfield. The Bell’s subpoena wants the account information for both handles.
Twitter Handle “Mr Negro Militant (NegroMilitant)
The death of Kendrick Johnson is very controversial, so much so that the Anonymous group recapped findings in a video. The video was uploaded to the site Vimeo.
The subpoena requests the account information for “Mr Negro Militant (NegroMilitant).” He is also known as Jueseppi Baker. In what Vimeo says is “10 months ago,” he posted a comment to the video on Vimeo. Just under his comment is one posted by a “Karen Bell” stating that the person who uploaded the video is “going to be sued.” Ten months ago would be about February 2015, and before the Bell’s filed their cross-complaint against the Johnson’s alleging defamation. The person who uploaded the video uses the handle “AnonDad.” His handle is also in the subpoena.
The petition for a restraining order filed by David Piercy alleged that the respondent “… has had several accomplices assisting him stalk and harass including but not limited to:” and the respondent’s “… stalking and harassment of individuals has been encouraged and supported by the following Florida attorneys who represent the estate of decedent Trayvon Martin and have been very manipulative of their supporters in the wake of the not guilty verdict and failed attempt to achieve their desired outcome of the case State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. “
David Piercy represented that the harassment that he sought to enjoin was because of dissatisfaction with a jury verdict. Please note some of his tweets above where he makes a similar allegation; i.e., that the people whose identifying information has been subpoenaed is because they will not “accept facts”.
The counter-claims alleges;
“Since January 12, 2014, the Johnsons used others as their authorized agents to post messages on various social media, including Facebook, Twitter, blogs, instant messaging, and the like, to post messages that were defamatory of the Bells.”
Further allegations include that the Johnsons used authorized agents to post to social media that KJ’s murder was covered-up and that Brian Bell murdered KJ with the assistance of others, or words to that effect.
In both, the moving parties allege that others were encouraged to help the actual named party in the alleged civil offense. Accomplices and/or authorized agents are not named parties to the action, but the moving parties want information about them.
The ACLU’S Brief
On or about November 18, 2015, the ACLU and the ACLU of Georgia filed an Amici Curiae (friend of the court) brief in the subject case. Since that was reported, David Piercy has gone on Twitter posting arguments, including leave of the court arguments. He even submitted comments to Blackbutterfly7 attempting to argue about the ACLU’s brief. On the day this is posted, and to the best of my knowledge, the Bell’s legal counsel has not filed a Rule to Show Cause against Twitter. For those who know correct discovery procedures for failure to comply with subpoena, I’ll leave it at that. For those who do not and want to know, please consider contacting a lawyer or a law professor. For all others, I ask that they consider that the ACLU knows what they are doing, how to do it, and the person claiming otherwise on Twitter has yet to earn his 2-year degree as a paralegal, has no Bachelor’s degree, interned for a bankruptcy attorney, and has not taken the LSAT to pass or fail to qualify for law school.
Continued in Part 6 – Evidence of Following Instructions to Destroy BGI Social Media Warriors By Taking Their Money and Silencing Them.