By Martin Austermuhle
On Thursday, February 9, the Washington Post briefly reported on an email sent to a number of reporters where a woman going by the name Thelma Roque accused Tamela Gordon, a Ward 3 ANC Commissioner and campaign worker for Sam Brooks, a candidate for the Ward 3 seat on the D.C. Council, of possibly breaking federal law. As the Post noted, when they wrote Ms. Roque for comment, Jonathan Rees, who is one of Brooks’ opponents in Ward 3 and liberally distributed Roque’s original email, responded in her stead. The article read:
Thelma Roque, by the way, appears not to be a registered voter in the District of Columbia, or a D.C. resident, for that matter. Why is she so concerned about the Ward 3 council race? We may never know.
But we do know this: When a city hall reporter e-mailed Roque and asked that she reveal herself, he got a response instead from — surprise! — Jonathan Rees.
The Rees missive defended Roque’s right not to identify herself.
“I guess Woodward & Bernstein wouldn’t have brought down Nixon if it wasn’t for a man who first chose to be anonymous,” he wrote.
And so came back to light a subject I reported on last November for DCist — the use of anonymous attacks in what is fast becoming a vicious political battle in Ward 3.
I reported then that Brooks was coming under heavy attack from a number of anonymous posters on Craigslist, some who went as far as to use Brooks’ name to promote racist and xenophobic sentiments. My investigation found a number of interesting coincidences between Rees’ writings and the many anonymous comments focused against Brooks. Since then, those coincidences have grown. More and more people have posted comments on DCist, DCPages.com, and a variety of neighborhood listservs defending Rees and attacking anyone that questions his history or aggressive style of campaigning. Many of these individuals have posted comments from IP addresses used by Rees himself, and more importantly, have consistently written in a grammatically-challenged style that has become one of Rees’ hallmarks. And ironically enough, it has been Rees who has accused Brooks of creating an army of online aliases to attack Rees’ campaign. In an email to me, Rees wrote:
What Sam Brooks would do was to create screen names that were favorable to him, create names pretending to be me or people associated with me and then both sides would start fighting each other and then the names favorable to Sam Brooks would turn around and say look at what Rees is doing knowing I had not done such.
I have found exactly the opposite.
The War of Words in Ward 3
Last November, I wrote an article for DCist describing a developing online battle in Ward 3, the District’s whitest and most affluent ward. Since late last summer an online battle has raged between Rees and Brooks, though the vast majority of the attacks have gone against Brooks. The attacks started on Craigslist, but fast spread to a variety of neighborhood listserves, the in-boxes of a numbers of journalists, and, after an initial report on the phenomenon on DCist, there.
The Many Friends of Jonathan Rees
After my initial posting on the online war, DCist received a number of comments from Rees on a variety of posts. His initial comments were in his name and associated with a rotating yet relatively predictable cast of IP addresses, all of which were recorded by DCist’s publishing software, Moveable Type. As time went on, though, some of the IP addresses associated with his name were used to post comments under different names. On one post in early November, an IP address used by Rees was similarly used by Thomas Shay, Margie Meserole, Juan Sanchez, and Sigvald Oleson. On a post later that month, IP addresses used by Rees were also used by Thelma Cumes, Juan Sanchez, and Officer Magana. In yet another post, IP addresses used by Rees were shared by Juan Sanchez and Meyer Lansky. And another, where a common IP address was used by Rees and Karen Hoffman. The practice continued into December, where Rees and Gloria Gutierrez were linked by an IP address on one post, Rees and Juan Espinal were similarly related by a shared IP address on another, Rees and Bill McGee on yet another. One specific IP address used by Rees has also been used a bevy of other commenters, including Jimmy Crane and James Brockton one one post; Under Witness Protection Program and Javier Blout on another; Little Bo Peep on a third; Andrew Dice Clay on a fourth; Rev Holy Molely and BMF on a fifth; DCistRob and Michael Corleone on a sixth; Jesus Christ on a seventh; Doug Himmel on an eighth; Corey, Laurie, and DCist Martin on a ninth; and Margaret and FKZ on a tenth. All told, that leaves Rees directly connected to the following aliases:
- Thomas Shay
- Margie Meserole
- Juan Sanchez
- Sigvald Oleson
- Thelma Cumes
- Officer Magana
- Meyer Lansky
- Karen Hoffman
- Gloria Gutierrez
- Juan Espinal
- Bill McGee
- Jimmy Crane
- James Brockton
- Javier Blout
- Little Bo Peep
- Andrew Dice Clay
- Re. Holy Molely
- BMF
- DCistRob
- Michael Corleone
- Jesus Christ
- Doug Himmel
- Cory
- Laurie
- DCist Martin
- Margaret
- FKZ
- KFZ
Much of the same has happened on the message-boards at DCPages.com, a clearing house for information on the District and its surroundings. There, some users who have had access to the IP addresses of those posting comments have accused Rees of creating up to 45 separate aliases for use on different messageboards and blogs, and all of who faithfully defend Rees’ campaign and mercilessly mock his opponents. Seven of those users — including one going by the name JRR, which are Rees’ initials, and another by the name Jason Rees, his son — have the same IP address that Jesus Christ, Doug Himmel, and others listed above have used.
One post late last year on Drinking Liberally suffered similar fate, where Jonathan Rees shared an IP address with Gloria Gutierrez — who, as noted above, has posted on DCist — and Leonardo Green. Similar allegations have been made concerning the sharing of IP addresses by Rees and others on a variety of neighborhood listservs, including those covering Cleveland Park, Tenleytown, Woodley Park, and Logan Circle, according to individuals on those lists.
Of course, none of what has happened has been illegal. Strange, sure, but not illegal. But it does point to a candidate who has taken on some odd habits to promote his campaign and, more importantly, attack that of Sam Brooks, one of his competitors. Many of the people who have shared IP addresses with Rees have viciously attacked anyone who dares to question them or their favored candidate, going so far as to provoke the moderators of multiple blogs, messageboards, and listservs to ban any and all comments related to Rees and his campaign.
One commenter who shared an IP address with Rees, though, did raise some eyebrows.
The Strange Case of Jose Magaña
On a DCist post dated November 17, an IP address initially used by Rees was then used by a commenter going by the name of “Officer Magana, MPD.” Officer Magaña — whose full name is Jose Magaña, an officer with the Latino Liaison Unit of the Metropolitan Police Department — again posted comments on a post dated January 12, this time using the handles “MPD Officer Jose Magana” and “Jose Magana.” He similarly posted comments on a DCPages thread started January 17, where he was described by one user going by the handle “MissGloverPark” (which matched the email address of Karen Hoffman, a DCist commenter who shared an IP address with Rees once) as “a personal friend of Rees.” In his comments, Magaña expressed support for Rees and offered his word that Rees was not using aliases online, going as far as to offer to meet those who claimed he was at his office and prove otherwise. This was quite a development in what had so far been a relatively innocent battle between a number of online personalities — a police officer who once shared an IP address with Rees was using his official title to defend the candidate, a possible violation of federal law.
Commenters on DCist and DCPages quickly claimed that Rees was impersonating a police officer, an accusation countered by some of Rees’ supporters. I put in a call to the Metropolitan Police Department’s Public Information Office, which verified that doing so would be a crime, though of a new and interesting nature, given that it was done online. The officer I spoke with stated that he thought an investigation has been launched into the matter, though he could not comment further on the matter while it was pending. I called Officer Magaña for comment, but he forcefully refused to answer any questions pertaining to the matter. In fact, I didn’t even get any questions in — the mere mention of my name was responded with an insistent refusal to answer questions.
As I began looking into the matter further, more information surfaced. Juan Espinal, who commented once on a DCist post and shared an IP address with Rees, is officially known as Sgt. Juan Espinal, also of the Latino Liaison Unit, though his comment did not include his title. One of Rees’ defenders on DCPages had once noted, “All those guys at the Latino Liasion Unit are long term and close friends of Rees. Rees helped most of them get their position at the LLU when it first started, several are Puerto Ricans and all of those guys are supporting Rees in his campaign.” If this were true and they expressed such support openly while using their official titles — as Magaña may have — they may be in violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits civil servants from campaigning for political candidates, even in local races. If not, and Rees had taken on the names of the officers to defend his campaign, he may well have impersonated a police officer, a crime in of itself.
Rees’ Defense
Rees has consistently claimed that the many people writing from IP addresses he shares are merely friends or co-workers using the same network or proxy servers, and not him using fictional names as aliases. In a recent email to me, Rees wrote, “Don’t you get it Martin. It is not me. As the rapper Shaggy says, ‘It wasn’t me.’ I am honest enough to say it is my friends not me.” Rees similarly claimed in a DCPages post early last month that his writings carried his name and his name only: “If I have something to say then I am man enough to say it, sign my name to it and anybody who wants to say that I am signing matters under phony names or asking others to post on my behalf does not know what they are talking about.”
Rees has offered two defenses against accusations that he has been creating aliases and posting comments online that promote his candidacy or attack those of his opponents. The first is that the majority of those sharing IP addresses with him are co-workers. In early January, Rees wrote on DCPages: “Many of those names you see are people who work for the same multi-state healthcare provide I manage.” The second is that they have all used the same proxy servers, as he noted in a recent email to DCist: “I told everyone before posting use proxy.org,” a website that allows users to surf the internet, and by extension, post comments anonymously.
But Rees has so far refused to answer why so many of the commenters coming to his defense share the same relatively poor English he often uses in his comments and emails. And much like the Post’s discovery that Thelma Roque was neither a District resident nor a registered voter — possibly not even a real person — I doubt that any of the people that comment in Rees’ defense are real. I emailed nine of them to check, and four of those email were returned and five remain without response.
Rees has now taken on a new defense — accusing Brooks of orchestrating attacks against him. In a recent posting on Craigslist, an unnamed commenter posted the following claim: “The reality is, most of these anonymous postings against Rees are just a part of the Austermuhle-Brooks campaign to besmirch Jonathan Rees and such should be obvious by the sheer magnitude of their postings on over 40 message boards/blogs that takes place around the clock since this past summer. Readers should wake up and look at all these vicious attacks lodged against Jonathan Rees by over 40 different screen names and it never stops.” Rees has made the same claim in various comments, posts, and emails, yet has not provided evidence to substantiate it.
The Point
And the point of all of this? After all, if Rees is creating an army of aliases to defend his campaign and attack his opponents, is he breaking the law? No, spare the case of the possible impersonation a police officer. But if it is true, which I believe it to be, it throws into question his competency for public office. After all, elected officials are charged with dealing with constituents on a daily basis, many of which may disagree with them. If Rees cannot run his campaign without attacking his opponents through any number of aliases, what will he do when his constituents come calling with complaints as to his decisions on public issues?
Just as important to ask is why Rees and his aliases have focused their fury on Sam Brooks, even though there are four other candidates also vying for the Ward 3 council seat. Many of the aliases linked by a common IP address to Rees have attacked Brooks, accused him of violating campaign finance laws, and even gone as far as to question his mental health. Beyond that, Roque, who while not being directly linked to Rees by an IP address no less shares his writing style and allowed him to respond to an email sent by the Washington Post, actually filed a complaint against Brooks and Gordon for violating the Hatch Act. Similarly, a resident going by the name Roy Stewart filed a complaint against Brooks late last year, accusing him of not living in Ward 3 as he claimed. The complaint was eventually dismissed, but it shows a tendency to appeal to every available channel to attack Brooks and derail his campaign. It is worth noting that Roy Stewart has been linked on DCPages to other users, including Ramon Rivera, Gloria Gutierres, and Jonathan Rees. Roy Stewart has also been linked to a user named Ramon R.J. Stewart, who recently posted anti-gay comments on DCPages (and has been actively posting at D.C. Wire) where he referred to Brooks as “Fag Boy Brooks,” called Brooks’ defenders “silly little faggots,” and stated, “I do not like fags and this is America and I have a right to say it as your filthy, immoral life-style is what is wrong with America and we should never legitimize a life style that is an abomination in the eyes of God.”
The Battle Continues
The online battle continues to this day, always taking on new personalities who ardently defend Rees and his candidacy. It is possible that none of these personalities are D.C. voters, much less real people. Regardless, their vicious rhetoric no doubt inflames tensions in Ward 3 and takes away from what could otherwise be a positive debate on issues of substance. And while I hope that this online battle will soon die down, I’m not terribly optimistic that will be the case. After all, there are still seven months left until the Democratic primary. That’s a lot of time to make a lot of comments.
An Afterthought
Rees does not want this information coming to light. When I emailed him recently to ask for a comment on the matter, he quickly threatened a lawsuit if I went to press with my allegations. More than that, though, he claimed his lawyers — who were representing him free of charge, to boot — were Eric Holder, a former Department of Justice official and prominent District lawyer, and Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University who is similarly running for the Ward 3 seat. I found this odd, to say the least. Would one of the District’s most prominent lawyers and one of Rees’ opponents really represent him if he sued me for libel? Apparently not, I found. While I wasn’t able to verify whether or not Holder has been retained by Rees, I did find out through a source that Cheh is most definitely not representing Rees. Why would Rees lie about something that is so unlikely to begin with and so easily verifiable thereafter? Who knows.
But now that the information is out, I fully expect Jonathan Rees to come after me as he has in the past. He will claim that I am working with Sam Brooks. In an email to me, Rees admitted, “I am going to associate you with Brooks in the campaign to show bad judgement by Brooks and as much as you have done for him which no other reporter would do, people will believe you are an ally and many already do think your actions are suspicious.” I have met Sam Brooks once, late last year, and we have exchanged a few emails concerning his campaign. I do not work for him, with him, near him, or to benefit his political campaign. I do not live in the ward he seeks to represent, and therefore do not much care what he proposes or even whether he wins or not. Knowing this, Rees has accused Brooks and I of being former lovers. In an email Rees allegedely sent to 6,000 voters on January 15 and was promptly posted online, he claimed Brooks and I were former lovers, but offered no evidence for such a claim. In an email sent to me on February 23, Rees claimed to have “four sworn statements from people at Remingtons and the Fireplace that say you are Sam’s lover.” I have yet to see these statements.
Rees will tear into my past, seeking to discredit my claims by pointing out that I was arrested once while in college (for failing to disperse, a misdemeanor), that I was once a member of a left-leaning student organization during my first months as a freshman in college (though I quit soon after I realized that I was not cut out to be a “Young Socialist”), and that I am currently and legally employed by the Embassy of Venezuela. More importantly, though, he will threaten to sue me for libel. Should he do so, I will defend to the last word what I have written here. He will have to prove that I lied, and since he is a public figure, that I did so with reckless disregard for the truth.
The Many Identities of Jonathan Rees 