Bullyville founder James McGibney seems proud of his history as a "federal witness" in many cases. He's boasted his history on Twitter at least twice in the past week. Last week, he posted screenshots of a declaration by Special Agent Walker Wisevich which said, "James McGibney is a cooperating FBI witness in the ongoing criminal investigation against Mr. Retzlaff and others." A couple days ago, he Tweeted "I'm a federal witness and very soon, you will be a defendant (again)" to someone he's been trying to get arrested for years. This shouldn't be news for that man and the other targets McGibney's identified on his Twitter feed so far, but it could be alarming to anyone else contacted by Bullyville for a TV show in the near future. McGibney claims there will be a Bullyville TV show soon and told people to watch his Twitter feed to find out who he'll target on the show. So far he seems to be posting the same five names over and over again for the most part, but has since expanded his attacks to include third party associates. Unless the Bullyville TV show only plans on having 5 episodes, someone will be contacted in the future by a TV show run by an active FBI informant. If you're involved with any legally questionable activity wouldn't you like to know if the TV show contacting you is a conduit of information for the FBI?
I would like to know if a show's host is actively trying to get people kidnapped by the government. When a television network run by statists decides to give a prolific FBI informant a national platform you can bet they expect him to do all he can to get people arrested. Like John Walsh of America's Most Wanted, McGibney is for all intents and purposes on the same level as a police officer. Professional snitches are snitches of the worst sort. While there might be room for sympathy in other cases of snitching such as snitch activism for the purpose of removing revenge porn (ex: https://copblaster.com/blast/48862/charlotte-laws-mother-of-problematic-revenge-porn-laws) or ratting someone out to save your own skin (ex: https://copblaster.com/blast/48874/federal-prison-consultant-rdap-dan-also-federal-prison-rat), there is far less room when someone chooses to become an arm of the state professionally. This makes James McGibney a clear and present danger to the liberty and happiness of American citizens just like the federal government.
To McGibney's credit, many of the people he's targeting on Twitter appear to have messed up histories. Thomas Retzlaff is alleged to have jacked off in front of his kids (https://twitter.com/BulIyville/status/1567326775323119616). If true, I'm glad he was murdered last year. One thing I learned in federal prison was that killing sex offenders is community service. I wouldn't be writing this if pursuing sex offenders were all Bullyville does.
Also to McGibney's credit, several of his targets are alleged to have targeted his kids. If true, reprehensible conduct in my opinion. One thing nobody has to worry about from me is targeting their kids. I do post addresses of people sometimes, but I'll never post names or pictures of their kids, where they go to school, or anything like that. I won't even do that to people who've gotten me kidnapped by the government. I always say being related to people like that should be punishment enough.
Swatting is another thing I won't do. Only snitches swat. Its not possible to swat without calling the cops. My mother was swatted by a stalker just because I wouldn't take an accusation posted by the stalker's ex-boyfriend off a site of mine. I've never swatted anyone so I thought such conduct made my family and I the real victims. The government conceded she was behind the swatting, but still prosecuted me for threatening her (https://copblaster.com/uploads/files/edie-frolichman.pdf). Ever since, I've had nothing but contempt for targeting people just for associating with someone. McGibney appears to be targeting anyone he believes to be friends or business associates of his enemies. If I have a problem with someone I target them directly. I'm not going to get involved with gang stalking anyone linked to an adversary unless there is a government nexus.
At least McGibney doesn't hide behind a screen name and targets people capable of fighting back. I respect that. By putting his real name on accusations they're more credible. However, at times the ability of his targets to fight back appears impaired either by the government, big tech censorship, or their own self restraint. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on many of his claims, but I can't support trying to get people kidnapped by the government and overcharged. I am however willing to cut snitches some slack if I think they're only telling on certain types of people. Those types include sex offenders. When I was in prison, I learned the best people to talk to about sex offenders are white supremacist gang members. Their sex offender management programs are state of the art, but often not available on the outside without significant legal liabilities. This makes sending sex offenders to prison an ideal solution to the sex offender problem. I prefer castration to making good dudes have to put in work, but some asshole decided that was a civil rights violation. Every second the police spend on sex offenders, dirty cops, snitches caught re-offending, etc. is a second they don't have to target good dudes. If McGibney limits his efforts to sexual predators, those that target kids, bullies with badges, government informants, and politicians I'd likely consider writing articles like this a waste of time.
If you're contacted by anyone associated with Bullyville or James McGibney, consider it the same as being contacted by the FBI. If you're involved with anything legally questionable talk to a lawyer before talking to Bullyville. If you talk to Bullyville assume you're being tracked by the FBI and everything you say is being recorded.
One of McGibney's targets may have been the victim of a wrongful conviction already. After reviewing the video below I've concluded that the only charge filed against Jennifer Couture for which she could have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial by an impartial jury was simple battery. Simple battery is defined as "Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other" (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.03.html). Whenever a defendant like Couture is so obviously innocent of the most serious charges (aggravated assault and burglary), the media and internets tend to double down on their efforts to convict the person before they can say a word.
In Couture's case, she does not appear to attempt to hit the alleged victim with her vehicle. She backs up her direction briefly while the alleged victim walks out of the way, but not nearly fast enough to hit her. Had she wanted to hit her she would've probably went back and to the left fast instead of just back slow. If that is an attempt to run someone over its one of the worst attempts I've ever seen. She appears to be not guilty of aggravated assault with a weapon. She is not guilty of burglary either. The burglary charge will be addressed later. This leaves simple battery which appears accomplished by trying to take the phone. Simple battery is a misdemeanor.
I do recall an associate of Couture posting what appeared to be false accusations against McGibney shortly after the Netflix show came out. He called McGibney a revenge pornographer which conflicts with my recollection of McGibney's activities and archived copies of McGibney's old website. While people may have posted revenge porn on a site of his, I've never seen any evidence of that site soliciting it, so I don't consider him responsible. I hope that is not why he is Tweeting "They're both extremely violent and love to use deadly force" (https://twitter.com/BulIyville/status/1567614828189028358) because if it is he should knock it off. She might want to talk to a defamation lawyer because backing a car up that slow is not deadly force.
Something similar happened to Kyle Rittenhouse. In that case, a self defense argument posted the night of the shooting based on the video evidence resulted in 63,000 visits from Google alone simply because it was one of the first articles posted with his name in the title (see https://copblaster.com/blast/25930/kenosha-protester-shot-in-self-defense-by-kyle-rittenhouse). By the end of the day it was buried behind dozens of pages of fake news. Google clearly got that one wrong. Big tech even went as far as suspending other peoples accounts for hate speech just for saying Rittenhouse defended himself. The best chance at getting Rittenhouse convicted was the press and the internet not the evidence. Fortunately it failed that time, but it succeeds enough to make it worth trying to many. Couture was a similar case despite being less vulnerable due to living in a red state. If she were not in Florida I'd say they might have had a chance convicting her of everything simply by convincing people she's a Karen. I'm guessing her decision to plead guilty had more to do with the jury pool being contaminated by internet snitch culture than it did the evidence.
You might recognize McGibney a.k.a. Bullyville from TV shows such as The Most Hated Man on the Internet on Netflix or Dr. Phil. In the Netflix case, McGibney bought IsAnyoneUp.com from Hunter Moore for $12,000, redirected it to Bullyville, and claimed victory only to find out Moore just bought a new domain name which he planned to use for the same content. Moore demonstrated a great way to make a quick buck by selling his domain name and buying a new one for $10. That was when Anonymous got involved. Moore made himself fair game for Anonymous by paying a hacker to steal nudes from over 40 women. They hacked just about everything he had and took down his severs, but they also said in a video they'd preserved evidence. Evidence for who? Was it intended for the FBI or just the online community to see for educational value? Anonymous has been investigated by the FBI countless times and many of those investigations predate Hunter Moore (see https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/fbi-arrests-16-in-anonymous-hacking-investigation/). Why would anyone targeted by the FBI ever agree to work with people working with the FBI? It doesn't make any sense. I can't think of a situation bad enough to justify helping the FBI with anything.
Anonymous said in a 2013 Tweet, "We openly support any operation that BullyVille launches. Any attack on them is a direct attack on us" (https://twitter.com/YourAnonNews/status/344970511136194560). Was Bullyville already an FBI informant the day that Tweet was made and if so, did Anonymous know about it? I ask because if Anonymous knew of Bullyville's status as an FBI asset they might as well have said they support any operation the FBI launches and any attack on the FBI is an attack on them.
This is not an attack on Anonymous or Bullyville. Merely criticism from someone who doesn't like finding excuses to send people to prison. I don't think most people in prison deserve to be there. One reason they're there is because of overcharging. Overcharging is one of the worst forms of bullying there is. Few things are more intimidating than the state threatening to put you in prison if you don't plead guilty to crimes you didn't commit. Unless you are obviously innocent of everything you almost always have to take the offer. Not taking the offer exposes you to at worst being convicted of everything and sent to prison or at best only being found guilty of what you actually did and having to go into sentencing with the state seeking the maximum. Some might say taking any deal offering probation would be a good idea under those circumstances, but not with serial snitches like McGibney's friends after her. She's far too likely to be targeted by gang stalkers eager to report any little thing to her probation officer. If ever convicted of another crime her sentence will be based on the history she now has. She can't argue she wasn't actually guilty of those prior offenses at this point. Lots of people are in prison due to pleading guilty to stuff they didn't technically do thinking it was no big deal because the state offered probation. Then they get caught doing something less serious and would have gotten probation had it not been for a prior case.
Under Johnson vs. United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf) the Supreme Court ruled that burglaries of unoccupied dwellings are not categorically violent offenses while burglaries of occupied dwellings are. That decision was used to strike down the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act as being too vague because its language covered too many non-violent offenses. The court recognized the difference between coming home to find your home broken into versus being the victim of a home invasion. How Johnson would apply to Couture is not exactly clear because the term "occupied conveyance" was used in her case while "occupied dwelling" is the term reviewed by SCOTUS. The word "conveyance" is not defined in the statute. If a vehicle can be a "conveyance" they really need to use the word vehicle in the statute. This vagueness could be grounds to challenge the Florida burglary statute because the word "conveyance" doesn't put reasonable people of average intelligence on notice of what's prohibited. I'm an educated man of superior intelligence and I still don't know what they mean by it after having read definitions of the word in the dictionary. The word "conveyance" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the action of conveying" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conveyance) which cannot possibly be used to describe a vehicle because a vehicle cannot possibly be an "action" of anything. A vehicle is an object not an act, so I don't see how you could ever accurately describe a vehicle as a conveyance. Florida's burglary statute is unconstitutionally vague in part due to using the word "conveyance" which can only accurately describe an act like driving not an object like a car. Conveyance describes the act of using a vehicle to transport anything from one place to another, but it cannot possibly describe a vehicle itself.
Sure enough, the Florida statute at issue in Couture's case defines "conveyance" inaccurately by including "any motor vehicle, ship, vessel, railroad vehicle or car, trailer, aircraft, or sleeping car" (https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/810.011). The alleged victim was clearly in the process of parking and leaving the car when Couture reached inside. Reaching inside a window cannot possibly be considered the same as breaking and entering. Think of when you leave a window slightly open at your home and imagine someone reaching through without trying to actually go through it or otherwise enter your home. That is not a burglary and neither was this. If this were burglary then all you'd have to do to make a burglar is turn off your engine, tell your passenger to leave, and call the police if she doesn't. That conduct might belong in a trespassing statute but not a burglary statute. You see the problem here? One second someone refusing to leave a vehicle is not a burglar, but the second the driver turns off the engine they're a burglar. The word "conveyance" means the act of transporting, so the state could never accurately describe a sleeping car as being engaged in such an act let alone an act itself.
Some dictionaries do have a second definition for "conveyance" which covers a vehicle used for conveyance, but the point is the legal definition is confusing. When most people hear the word "conveyance" they don't think of a car or a boat. How many times have you been asked "is that your conveyance?" Probably never.
Another Florida statute defines "conveyance" differently. Florida statute 316.80 prohibits the unlawful conveyance of fuel, it reads in part:
"It is unlawful for any person to maintain, or possess any conveyance or vehicle that is equipped with, fuel tanks, bladders, drums, or other containers that do not conform to 49 C.F.R. or have not been approved by the United States Department of Transportation for the purpose of hauling, transporting, or conveying motor or diesel fuel over any public highway." - See http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.80.html
Clearly the legislature considered a conveyance different from a vehicle. They wouldn't say "conveyance or vehicle" if a conveyance and a vehicle are the same thing. They do not define "conveyance" in that statute, but you can look at how the law's been enforced to see what it likely means. In 2013, Pastor Terry Jones was arrested for unlawful conveyance of fuel (https://apnews.com/article/072328a92eaa47b6a5a98a81ca3a5f8d). Jones was pulled over while towing a barbeque grill containing 2,998 Qurans soaked in kerosine. In that case the "conveyance" was the barbeque grill. While that is still an inappropriate use of the word "conveyance" it better supports my argument than the dictionary because if a barbeque grill is a "conveyance" and the truck pulling it a "vehicle" then Couture couldn't possibly have entered a "conveyance" by sticking her hands in a "vehicle".
Fortunately for Couture, the state moved orally to reduce her burglary charge to a misdemeanor trespassing charge. This resulted in her receiving probation for three misdemeanors. While she was originally charged with aggravated assault under Florida statute 784.021, the charge she pled guilty to was just assault under 784.011 which can be accomplished simple by "threat by word or act to do violence" which might describe backing up close to somebody as seen in the video, but without actually trying to hit them. I don't know her, so I don't know her reasons for backing up the way she did, but if I had to pick between trying to hit someone and just scaring someone it would probably be the latter based on the video. It would be the perfect way to make a threat using the vehicle to back up close enough to make her move but slow enough to make sure she could still get out of the way easily. If I were a juror I would probably acquit Couture absent an admission of malicious intent unless I missed her saying something specifically threatening in the video. Reckless endangerment could be a more appropriate charge based on the evidence. Getting hit with an SUV at that speed would most certainly cause bruising, would probably knock the person to the pavement causing scrapes as well as more bruising and possibly even a broken bone, but nothing life threatening. I'm not sure when the charge was changed. Her indictment lists aggravated assault, but a lot of documents are not available, so exactly when the charge was reduced remains a mystery.
James McGibney a.k.a. Bullyville appears committed to getting people kidnapped by the government. Approach with caution. If his show contacts you and doesn't consider you a "victim" there is a good chance they will try to get you kidnapped by the government. I hope that he limits his efforts to just those truly beyond redemption and doesn't broaden his efforts to include those whose only offense is being friends or business associates of his enemies. Hiring someone who's threatened someone is not the same as threatening someone.
CORRECTION: It appears Couture's charges were reduced to misdemeanors and the burglary was changed to trespass. I missed that because the plea documents are unusual. Instead of dismissing the burglary charge and issuing a new information charging her with trespass, the court checked a box next to burglary only to check another box stating the government orally changed the burglary to a trespass at the plea hearing. This would not be allowed in any federal court. I've only been to federal prison not state prison, so the federal system is what I'm most familiar with. The government can't orally change charges during a hearing for any reason in federal court. Doing that would violate the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
One reason I didn't look close enough at the final disposition the first time was because Bullyville Tweeted her mugshot two days ago with her original charges (https://twitter.com/BulIyville/status/1567628040514969601). The Bullyville Tweet does not reflect the final disposition of the case. Posting someone's mugshot with just the original charges can be a great way to troll people because the best truthful response they can often give is that the charges were reduced which still requires them to admit to much of the conduct alleged. A lot of people just stop listening to the convicted at that point.
I won't remove the arguments against burglary in this case because they're applicable to every other case in which someone is charged with burglary of an occupied conveyance in Florida for sticking any part of their body inside a vehicle to do something else which is illegal in its own right.