, , , , , , ,

Good day, eh.  Well today’s topic will be about how bringing about the total economic destruction of James McGibney (who we don’t like) and his ViaView revenge porn / blackmail company has been so much fun!  With the side benefit being the total destruction of McGibney’s public reputation just adding icing on the cake!






7/1/14 at 0015 hrs GMT.

According to numerous sources close to the investigation (which consist primarily of the voices in our head), Twitter Corporation stocks have risen sharply today on news that Twitter has hit James McGibney (who we don’t like) with yet another BAN HAMMER on THREE more of Mc-Stupid’s Twitter sock puppet accounts!!



Here are the accounts that were banned in today’s bloodbath:

BV banned #8BV banned #7BV banned #6

Hey Mc-Stupid!  Kinda hard to get your word out when you keep getting hit by the Twitter Ban Hammer, isn’t it?  Oh well.  Sucks to be you, asshole!



Anti-bullying advocate my ass.





SPECIAL UPDATE #2:  6/29/14 at 1900 hrs GMT.

Hey James Alex McGibney:  In case you haven’t figured it out by now, WordPress doesn’t give two shits about you or your BULLSHIT (to use a special word we learned in CPR class) complaints!!

Yes, ladies & gentlemen, over the past few weeks Mc-Stupid & Company have been engaging in a coordinated attack against WordPress with a bunch of spam complaints, such as this one here:

Pastebin WordPress Complaint

Specifically, McGibney and his twitter nerd buddies were complaining about an article we did in which we PROVED BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that James McGibney has special admin or insider access to the revenge porn website MyEx.com.  McGibney removed at least two postings about himself from this site, as well as two others (like the ones below) about his wife Christina Orduna McGibney.  Check out our article here:  https://viaviewfiles.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/james-mcgibney-myex-com/

He especially didn’t like it when we posted these photographs with our article.  So please DO NOT LOOK AT THEM!

Nudity removed

Nudity removed

Nudity removed

Nudity removed

These photos were posted purely for illustrative purposes and to show that, yes, they did exist.  But were magically removed by James McGibney because he is an Admin at this revenge porn website or has some other insider access to it.  We have no clue as to whether or not the allegations contained therein are truthful or not (in our opinion, it would not surprise us in the least).

MyEx.com #2

In yet another example PROVING THAT MCGIBNEY IS BEHIND REVENGE PORN SITE MYEX.COM, he was able to get the posting about Bullyville / McGibney sycophant Adam Steinbaugh removed, as well.  How did that happen?

Myex Steinbaugh #3

We hope that all of you people out there reading this will send Steinbaugh a message asking him exactly how it was he was able to get this post removed when everyone else is required to pay a $500 take down fee.  I’ll bet that will be an interesting story, eh Steinbaugh?


And now McGibney has been filing BOGUS trademark complaints, too.  But, as you can see, WordPress doesn’t give two shits about these complaints, either.

Wordpress trademark complaint

Hey McGibney & Leiderman – We aren’t going away!  We don’t give two shits about TROs, court orders, trademark or TOS complaints.  Seriously.


Now back to your regularly scheduled program….






Wasn’t it a few months ago when Mc-Stupid used to get on Twitter and start blasting out the names and photos of his enemies, calling this person or that person a pedo, rapist, felon, or deadbeat?  A few weeks / days ago??  My how time flies when you’re having fun.

BV banned 1

Now look what happens when you try to look at McGibney’s twitter accounts:


The next accounts to be added to this list will be McGibney’s @Cheaterville, @Karmaville, @Slingerville, and @Cupidville twitter accounts.  All will be banned soon and removed from the interwebs forever.  You people just need to keep a sharp on out on these accounts so that as soon as they do something you feel is inappropriate, you report them immediately to Twitter so they can hit them with the ban hammer!

ban hammer


For those of you new to BV Files, here is a guide to help you understand the players, who we don’t like, and why:

  1. ViaView, Inc. is a company incorporated in Delaware that is owned by seven guys involved in the construction industry in Las Vegas, Nevada.
  2. Cheaterville.com is a revenge porn site that is run by ViaView.  On Cheaterville people can post intimate photos and personal details about their ex-.  If you find yourself posted on Cheaterville, you will be forced to pay them $199 (or more!) if you want to ransom back your photos and get the post removed.
  3. Bullyville.com is a hate speech / bullying website that is run by ViaView.  While on the surface the website looks innocently enough, if you just barely scratch the surface by looking in its Articles section you will find some of the most vile and ugly hate speech one could ever imagine.
  4. James Alexander McGibney. He is born in Oct. 31, 1973, from the town of Monroe, NY, who lives in San Jose, CA, and is married to Christina Orduna McGibney (born in June 12, 1981 in the SF-Bay area), with whom he has three small boys with. He is a liar, a thief, and a criminal – seriously. He has falsely claimed to having an Executive Education from Harvard Business School. He does have a FAKE college degree from Chadwick University, a well known diploma mill since shut down by the Govt., and has filed for Ch. 7 bankruptcy at least twice in recent years.


The owners of ViaView consist of the following individuals:

  1. Dave Suder – West Coast President/CEO of KHS&S Contracting, who is also on the Board of Regents for Servite Catholic High School in Anaheim, CA.  His son David Stone Suder is currently on trial in Orange County, CA for multiple counts of child rape involving VERY YOUNG CHILDREN!
  2. Mark Caspers – owner of Las Vegas based Caspers Construction Company, LLC.
  3. Michael T. Carr – a man who calls himself “The Profit Prophet” (bet he didn’t see this coming?) and who is currently in hiding from his wife’s divorce lawyer.
  4. Wayne P. (Pat) Hibbs – President/CEO of Caspers Construction Company, LLC.
  5. Nikolas (Nick) Mamula – owner of a Las Vegas pre-fabricated stone products & tile company called T. Nicholas Co.
  6. Scott Corey Ryan – a lawyer licensed to practice law in Arizona, Illinois, and Nevada who is employed by Caspers Construction Company, LLC.
  7. James McGibney – serial resume fraudster & deadbeat with TWO Chapter 7 bankruptcies under his belt.


Q: What is an LOLsuit and why do you constantly refer to them here?

A: An LOLsuit is a portmanteau from taking “LOL” (Laugh Out Loud) and combining it with “lawsuit.” Thus, an LOLsuit is a joke lawsuit, or a lawsuit that is a joke. Note that it is a very real lawsuit filed in a real court. But the premise behind the lawsuit, or the legal reasoning expressed therein, is a total joke (i.e. makes one LOL when reading it).


For those that have not been paying attention, James McGibney (who we don’t like) has filed an LOLsuit in Ft. Worth, Texas, against EVERYONE who has ever had anything negative to say about McGibney or who has ever disagreed with McGibney in a state court lawsuit styled James McGibney vs The Internets.  In that LOLsuit filed in the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, McGibney was represented by an attorney from Beaumont, Texas named John S. Morgan. (http://www.jsmorganlaw.com/).  You can see a copy of it here: McGibney vs The Internets – Texas Lawsuit

In this LOLsuit, Mc-Stupid is claiming that some random angry person has totally destroyed his ViaView company and McGibney’s reputation as a good, clean God fearing young man by telling everyone and their mamma that McGibney is a filthy piece of human garbage who runs a revenge porn / blackmail company (all of which is true – 100% VERIFIED).  This random, angry person (who no one has ever heard of before) is supposedly involved in a Grand Conspiracy with a bunch of other random people who are scattered about the world and who are all mean and have ganged up on poor Jimmy poor here and his ViaView social media company.

McGibney claims (with a straight face) that this one man and this group of random people have cost him well over $250,000 and business losses of around $20,000 per month starting since October 2013.

lost money #2We just wonder if his tax returns support such an amount or if he is just making shit up.


One of the claims made by McGibney (who we don’t like) in his lawsuit involves the claims of “torts of business disparagement and tortious interference with business relationships.”  See McGibney vs The Internets at paragraph 20.

McGibney vs The Internets - Para 20_Page_1McGibney vs The Internets - Para 20_Page_2McGibney vs The Internets - Para 20_Page_3

When you file a lawsuit the plaintiff (McGibney, in this case) has the burden of proving his cause of action.  In Texas the elements of business disparagement that McGibney (who we don’t like) must prove consist of the following:

  1. The defendant published disparaging words about the plaintiff’s economic interests.
  2. The words were false.
  3. The defendant published the words with malice.
  4. The defendant published the words without privilege.
  5. The publication caused “special damages”.

In California this tort is commonly known as Trade Libel and the elements are essentially the same:

  1. Defendant’s false statement;
  2. Publication;
  3. Of matter disparaging the quality of another person’s property or services;
  4. Which the publisher intended to cause harm to the owner, or should have recognized as being likely to cause it; and
  5. Causation of pecuniary harm or loss.


Since this is meant to be a blog and not a law school seminar which you can use to pad your resume by claiming you have an Executive Education, we will only hit upon the high points here in addressing these elements that we feel are lacking from McGibney’s lawsuit.  And please also keep in mind that this legal “advice” is completely marginal, at best, and is only worth what you paid for it.  For all you know, the person behind this post could be a drunken chicken pecking away randomly on someone’s unattended laptop!  Nothing substitutes for the advice of a lawyer YOU paid for.

McGibney’s lawsuit fails because, in its pleadings, the plaintiff must identify the specific words or statements it contends were made by the defendant(s) that were disparaging or false.  Granada Biosciences, Inc. v. Barrett, 958 S.W.2d 215, 222 (Tex.App. – Amarillo 1997, pet. denied).  A mere assertion that a defendant made a disparaging statement is not sufficient.  As you can see from his lawsuit’s petition, McGibney fails to identify what SPECIFIC words or statements he contends were disparaging or false.

On a similar issues, proof of special damages is an essential element in a business-disparagement claim — without proof of special damages, there is no claim.  Hurlbut v. Gulf Atl. Life Ins. Co., 749 S.W.2d 762, 767 (Tex. 1987).  To prove special damages, the plaintiff must provide evidence of direct pecuniary loss attributable to the false statement.  Thus, McGibney’s and ViaView’s complete financial history and records will discoverable and at issue here.

Texas law requires proof that the disparagement caused a direct pecuniary loss.  Thus, there must be an exact and direct link between the allegedly false statements and the money losses.  Johnson v. Hospital Corp., 95 F.3d 383, 391 (5th Cir. 1996).

Because this lawsuit involves an action brought by a public figure against a media defendant (which bloggers are: see Calif. Court Rules Bloggers Have 1st Amendment Protections), the NY Times v Sullivan standard for “actual malice” applies.  Under Texas & California law, actual malice must be proven by clear and convincing evidence (a much higher standard of proof, almost as high as “beyond a reasonable doubt”).

And even if libel or business disparagement is miraculously proven by McGibney, the defendants here can always assert the defense that McGibney is libel-proof.  In Texas, a plaintiff is libel-proof when he has no reputation to lose.  Which then begs the question: What kind of reputation does a scum-bag revenge pornographer who likes to charge little girls blackmail money so that he will remove their intimate photos and personal details from his website have to lose, we ask?  That’s for you the jury to decide.

In the case at hand, McGibney seems to be mad that people done went and complained to his advertisers about him running a revenge porn and bullying website.  However, we would point out that McGibney is guilty of engaging in the exact same conduct!  Thus, he does not have “clean hands.”

Just two years ago McGibney went on the offensive and attacked Reebok shoes over some ad campaign that he did not like and he threatened to have his “millions of followers” boycott and ruin the business of Reebok.

BV Demand to Reebok

See McGibney orders boycott of Reebok by “millions” of Cheaterville followers.

It seems that by his lawsuit, McGibney (who we don’t like) is missing the point here.

Just as McGibney has his freedom of speech to demand a boycott of Reebok, we have the freedom of speech to boycott his advertisers and spread the word about his business practices.  In fact, a boycott is a form of free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to boycott in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886 (1982).

The court held that the States have broad power to regulate general economic activities, but cannot prohibit peaceful political activity and organizing.  This includes boycotts, which are protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments in regards to freedom of speech and association.  Also, within the right to freely associate is the right to demonstrate and align one’s self with the ideals of the association or business — or not.

Also, individuals are not responsible for business losses due a non-violent boycott — even if a business fails.  The First Amendment freedoms in a boycott trump the business owner’s success.

In Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971), Chief Justice Warren Burger stated:

The claim that the expressions were intended to exercise a coercive impact on respondent does not remove them from the reach of the First Amendment. Petitioners plainly intended to influence respondent’s conduct by their activities; this is not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper. Petitioners were engaged openly and vigorously in making the public aware of respondent’s real estate practices. Those practices were offensive to them, as the views and practices of petitioners are no doubt offensive to others. But so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability.


In other words, even if the goal of the boycott is coercive action against a business entity, the boycott is protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as long as it remains non-violent.

Thus, James McGibney, you suck.  And as long as we can we will make certain that NO ONE will ever advertise or do business with you or ViaView!

We will make certain that the public knows who each and everyone of your ViaView investors are, where they live, and who they work for.  We will tell their friends, neighbors and co-workers all about their little revenge porn and hate speech hobby and that they make their money by scamming little girls and blackmailing them.


By now you should realize that we don’t give two shits about TROs, court orders, or any of that other nonsense.  We aren’t going away and we will never stop.  By now you should realize that it truly does not matter how many LOLsuits or TROs you file.

  1. Your advertisers will NEVER come back.
  2. Your celebrity endorsers will NEVER come back.
  3. Your reputation will NEVER come back.


What we turned McGibney's company into - all for the lulz

What we turned McGibney’s company into – all for the lulz