Wake up call for Marilu,

A good representative of the people is one who can get along with the rank and file of the DC Government workers who actually carry out what the council wants and in this respect, it is no hidden secret that Erik Gaull, Bill Rice and Robert Strauss are absolutely detested by a large number of government employees who hate them, think they are arrogant and thus elected them would be an utter disaster as they would not have the respect of the government workers to get things done.

We need someone who is not just politically savvy but someone who has not pissed off the rank and file of the DC Government employees as Gaull, Rice and Strauss have done so well for so many years.

So why vote for people who will not be effective in getting those to do the things we need done.

The reality is, people like Brooks, Goulet and Rees are the only candidates who have no enemies inside the DC Government among a large number of workers.

Yes Schools are the MAIN issue for me. I am one of the brave souls who has put their kids in public school. Paul Strauss is the ONLY candidate with kids in the DC Public School system. He mentioned things like his school's budget being cut and losing his daughter's third grade teacher next year. I want someone who knows what us parents are dealing with on a day to day basis to keep our schools going. DC Public School parents pour their hearts into their schools-- fundraisers, field trips, repairs, etc. Unless you are in it like us, you don't get it. Cheh sent her kids for a short stint to public school many many years ago and then opted for George Town Day School I hear. That just doesn't fly with me. I also hear Fenty is not making firm committments to putting his kids in public school next year. How are we going to really reform our schools if none of our elected officials are truly invested. I proposed we elect noone that does not have kids in public school today!!!

I agree with Rees. It is all a matter of style and there is no right or wrong. Look at the message, not the messenger as some of our best leaders were not great communicators.

The Washington Post too often is not reporting the news but trying to create the news, and this may be why its readership is dropping, as we need responsible journalism and not yellow journalism which the Washington Post has reduced itself to being.

Claire,

Your post is utterly idiotic.

Our schools need to spend more time on teaching the basics. It has been the watering down of the basics with field trips and the like that have made our children non-competitive in the real world.

The fact that a candidate has a child in our school does not qualify her or him to be a member of our council and to think so, shows me you need to go back to school and learn how not to be stupid.

Our standing council member spent 12 years ignoring the fact that the money we all paid in taxes and designated to keep our schools up to par never was spent on such, and she kept her mouth shut, never challenged what she knew was massive misappropriation and Paul Strauss knew that too and never spoke up either.

Paul Strauss is a freakin jerk, a lazy bum and an opportunist with an ego bigger than the District.

Claire is is idiots like you and your twisted thinking why DC is still a mess.

Well I for one, missed having Rees there. Why didn't he come? Was he not invited? I think everyone should have an opportunity to speak!

Rees was not invited to the Ward 3 Candidate's Forum on purpose because he's become persona non grata in Ward 3. Nobody wants anything to do with Jonathan Rees, especially groups that are organizing candidate forums. Why is Rees being barred from these forums? Read: http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/02/13/professionalism.php

That is silly. Everyone is entitled to an opportunity to speak--this is a Democracy afterall.

Not everyone is entitled to speak, certainly not literally insane candidates who do nothing but lie about, and attack, other candidates. That doesn't do anything to help our democracy.

Given the fact that Jonathan Rees is now Washington, DC's most notorious spammer, it makes perfect sense that Rees would not be invited to the candidate's forum. Spammers get no respect because they don't deserve any.

Bob Brandon who is our president of the ward 3 Democrats can tell you that Mr. Rees let it be known back in 2005, that he had no interest in debates.

DC Wire staff: PLEASE STOP THIS. Rees ruins every single comment thread. And while I don't like it either when other candidates' supporters post on other threads (Mayor/At-Large Council), at least they're real candidates. Rees is not a real candidate; he probably won't be on the ballot (250 legitimate signatures is unachievable for him).

Please, please stop this. You now have the only blog that hasn't taken steps to shut him out.

I second that. The second I noticed the new post was about the Ward 3 forum , I thought "Oh, great. There'll be a bunch of annoying comments from Rees and Rees pretending to be other people."

And sure enough, that's what happened. I think he literally can't stop himself. Please do us, and him, a favor, and curb his obsessional posting.

Rees claims to distribute his campaign flyers in the dead of the night. (Though I have yet to see any.)

Rees refuses to talk to reporters.

Rees says he won't attend any candidate forums.

Rees' so-called campaign manager has never been seen.

Jonathan R. Rees sounds like a man who has a lot to hide.

Rees is apparently incapable of understanding that candidate forums reach far more people than actually attend because of media coverage.

I agree. There's something very devious about this guy. SO much subterfuge.

"Speaking with reporters" is not the same as annoying them. It's generally understood to mean submitting to a standard interview.

As a matter of fact, I did submit to interviews from five local reporters from the Post, Times, CP, NW Current and In Towner as well as being on two radio talk shows.

Obviously you were out to lunch and did not read their articles.

I have been in so many sections of ward three where residents have told me that the only campaign literature they have seen for the ward three race has been mine, short of their seeing some signs elsewhere up on street lights.

Pardon me Rees, if your vague assertions about "current stats" and what "top political scientists" say rings utterly false.

Your ignorance about contemporary political research is apparently abundant. Anyone but you would be embarassed to post that.

Please note that the "interviews" rees talks about happened long before his bizarre behavior on-line and IRL became the talk of the town.

He refuses, apparently, to submit to an interview about that.

Show us a link citing those "stats", Rees. Please, I think many of us would love to see them.

:-)

Do your own research lazy person.

And interviews? I've only seen a couple of quotes, all quite old. No "interviews" in which you address any difficult or substantive questions. I hear you've refused a few such requests recently.

Whatever. I'm wasting my time, as the adage has it, arguing with a lunatic.

Do my own research? In fact, I have.

And you're utterly, completely wrong.

You should be very careful making up statistics in a town filled with people who know something about politics, dude.

Rees will go to extremes to avoid any interviews; he does not want to be questioned by regular voters at forums. And why is that? Because Rees needs to keep his past hidden. He's afraid that his lies will be exposed in the media. Lies about where he went to school, how many children he has, his made up campaign staff, his checkered legal past, his spamming people, his impersonating people online, his relentless stalking of certain individuals.

Rees did talk with some reporters in the past, but now that all of Washington's press corps knows he's a liar or a sociopath or psychotic (pick one or all of the above) Rees will not and cannot consent to an interview. He must avoid all public appearances, to help keep all this stuff hidden. (That effort is destined to fail, however.)

Indeed the most recent articles that have mentioned Jonathan Rees have pointed to his extremely bizarre behavior. Rees knows what would result from a real interview at this stage: the truth about Jonathan Rees.

With each post, you only further your reputation for poor critical thinking skills. And general lack of intellectual prowess. That last one was a fine example of why people consider you to be the least intelligent of the candidates.

PS: My post above was about Rees' intellectual deficit, not the poster above me . With whom I agree, obviously.

I love these comments. I wouldn't have a clue about Ward 3 if I didn't read these comments to the various blogs. Maybe we need Rees to liven up the Council. Too bad the other candidates don't post as much so that the rest of the city could learn about them. Right now, Rees is synonymous with Ward 3. You gotta luv D.C.

I have never refused an interview.

I will be accept an interview by real people not aliases posting here on DC Wire.

Fact, I just spoken two days ago in an interview setting with Elissa Silverman who posted this thread and with James Jones of the City Paper.

Sorry liars but you like lying to readers and do not know what you are talking about.

Last night, I gave a speech to 272 ward 3 voters, accepted questions and walked away with 48 signatures on my petition ballot and thus I am not afraid to answer questions from real people, with real faces and real names.

Really now.

Can't WAIT to see the results of those interviews. Seriously.

You don't say? And where, exactly, did this speech before 272 voters take place?

The speech I gave was at the Episcopal Retirement Center and it was arranged by Courtney Cunningham.

I give about one or two speeches a day to various organizations set up by ward 3 voters.

This is more effective than candidate forums.

No matter how much a few of you want to discredit me, there are a lot of people who invite me to come and give speeches.

Linda Cropp was the only mayoral candidate to show up to speak at the ERH and I was the only ward 3 candidate.

Episcopal Retirement Center eh? Address please?

And if you did speak there, I see no reason why you wouldn't elaborate. Which is to say that the answer "Do you own research" will not be sufficient. I've already googled it, and as yet have found no reference.

So, 272 people who didn't have to leave their home to attend. Wow.

One or two speeches a day?

BALONEY.

Wrong...I have just as the other candidates have done the same whether it has been a tea party, lucheon or what have you.

Get out from behind your computer.

Only liars like to post things anonymously.

"Only liars post anonymously."

This coming from a man who was quoted in the Washington Post as defending anonymity thusly: " '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."

Rees writes above, "I give about one or two speeches a day to various organizations set up by ward 3 voters."

I didn't think that Rees' lies could get any bigger and bolder, but obviously they have.

You should see the one he posted on Craigslist last night, in which he talks about walking in Christ's footsteps, and spending 30 hours a week at the bedside of sick children and dying people.

The grandiosity continues to amuse. And frighten

Posting is one thing, giving leads to reporters is a different bird moron.

I posted nothing on Craig's List last night as I was not home but at a speech giving event.

Here's the complete text of the totally bizarre post Rees placed on Craig's List on June 9th. I wanted to post it here for the world to see before it got deleted from Craig's List:

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/169943060.html

HE IS THE ONLY DC WARD 3 CANDIDATE WHO

Spends over 30 hours a week at the bedsides of our sick children, the dying, and the elderly in nursing homes and hospitals, and fights for their needs for affordable housing, better healthcare via the Medicaid/Medicare system, demands for dignity and for a voice in a society who fails to hear their cries for help.

He has slept on the porch of a church for two months during the cold winter with the homeless, walked with them throughout the day hours floating around to soup kitchens and looking for a place to shower because he wanted to know their pain and suffering.

Witnesses to all that he has done are members of the DC Clergy.

None of the other ward 3 candidates have ever done what he has or would be bothered as they only care about people who can do something for them and sit back in the comforts of their plush homes and the closet they come to the suffering around them is to see it on their TVs.

Some call him a sociopath. Some mock his low budget campaign. Others look for ways of belittling him but as a woman of strong Christian values, he has done more to walk in the foot steps of Christ than his rivals and that is why I will vote for him because he is in this race for all of us not for himself like his rivals are.

It is time somebody speak up for Jonathan Rees.

I spy at least two Rees lies on this thread:

1. The lie about Rees giving one or two speeches a day "various organizations set up by ward 3 voters." Ha!

2. The lie about the Christ post on Craig's List, which was indeed posted by Jonathan Rees. That message, which readers can still view at http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/169943060.html, ranks among Rees' strangest.

Why is it that Rees can only tell lies? Why is that he's not to be trusted? Perhaps the answer is in the evaluation of Rees given by a DC Court psychiatrist in 1992: "Mr. Rees either purposely lied to me or distorted reality, due to a pathologic process, or both. It appears reality is interpreted to meet his own internal needs."

Here's an experiment.

This is the link to the only Episcopal retirement facility at which Courtney Cunningham serves as activities coordinator.

Let's call and find out if Rees was actually personally invited by her.

http://www.esm.org/about/staff.html

Oh. My God. Are you, Rees, SERIOUSLY going to allege that the "Rees" about which the court psychiatrist in your divorce case wrote isn't YOU? Despite what the court shows?

Dear God. That's just insane.

A sociopath NEVER admits the truth about himself. I'm starting to believe the rumor.

Denied. You everyone proof that Rees is me as you will not be able to as I am not that Rees but I wish you good luck in proving it.

Here is where you will come up short: Age, Social Security Number and more but have fun.

Nice try rees. Except their domain name is esm.org.

I strongly urge people to call the phone number on their webpage, rather than any fake number or email rees provides here.

He's just that devious.

But, Jonathan, you're contradicting what you wrote in other posts about the divorce case.

Why, just last week you wrote about the case, using words like "me" and "my" and alleging that the attorney involved had violated "my" privacy.

It's all unravelling.

Wow. It takes a particular kind of nerve to deny something that's plainly, demonstrably, documentably true. Especially when some people here KNOW THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE CASE.

So congratulations Mr. Rees. With this post, you've more than earned the title of Most Outrageous Liar! It's not a council seat, but maybe this particular award will bring some small comfort to your troubled mind.

I think Strauss did make a good showing. I will not support him for a variety of reasons, but will completely understand why folks will. He is the most passionate about DCPS, and has
an overabundance of working knowledge of both DC and
Federal processes. My main issue with him is his lack of new ideas or vision, except where DCPS is concerned. His professional business is about helping people weed through the DC bureacuracy. He has no vested interest in making things easier for citizens, nor has he indicated that he would divest himself of his practice. He is happy to have things remain the way they are, except for DCPS. He is part of the problem, not the solution for Ward 3 and the City.

Neither Gordon nor Gaull hurt themselves with this forum, but neither did they distinguish themselves either. Both had opportunties to, but clearly didn't have enough to say about any issue to take up the two minutes they had, when allotted. If they don't have enough depth of content, they aren't worth supporting in my opinion. Gaull made an ass of himself when he flip-flopped on the whole sign-in-public-space thing. Either you allow it in your campaign or you don't. Only Gordon and Brooks vowed not to clutter our streets with the environmentally unfriendly yard signs in public spaces. I applaud both for that. Gaull should have stuck to the pledge he claimed to make earlier in his campaign. I wonder what other campaign pledges he will break?

Wiss and Rice were both an embarrassment relative to the financial and community support each claim to have. Rice's solution for every issue was a citizen based committee and his pledge to "bird dog" responsible parties on his first day in office. His claims of responsibility for DDOT successes were
laughable at best ("Dan and I..."). Wiss came off as mousey and not knowledgeble on several issues (a lot of "me too" in her responses). I was also a little put off by a small group of her supporters who audibly BOOED views they didn't agree with. It is one thing to pack a room with folks for support, but another for people to actually boo. I was embarrassed for her.

With respect to Sam Brooks, I am not sure why he would raise the age issue when, for the most part, it wasn't brought up. He was the only one to provide solutions (whether you agree with
them or not is another issue) to current problems.
However, he comes off as TOO polished. I think he was very nervous, which surprised me. He has concrete solutions to the problems in the Ward and the City, but it might, or might not be his time.

Mary Cheh was well spoken, and obviously felt more confortable with the format as the evening wore on. She and Gaull were the only ones not to pledge to a full-time council committment. But both tried to soft-peddle their outside committments. I think she was trying to assert herself in the crowded field. She is obviously comfortable with public speaking, given her professoral duties.

I am not sure why Eric Goulet is even in the race. Perhaps it is to raise visibility to the Clark construction project on Tilden Street. To be an "advocate" of Smart Growth, but denounce that project is the height of irony and bad NIMBYism. He should not even bother to get the petitions signed. He was otherwise a one-trick pony when it came to legislative solutions for the ward. he really didn't come off as someone who is ready to be in the race.

Rees. See above. Enough said.

Name the people here you claim were involved in that case you speak of.

Talk is cheap but you have presented no evidence anybody can rely on as being true.

Give us one name.

Do your own research lazy person

Lazy nothing, you have not put forth the name of one person you claim are here that were a part of that so called case.

It is easy to say something as a cheap shot you you failed to meet the challenge of a name.

Also, all of the candidates do have signs in the public space. Brooks has them along River Road and in the Palisades and Gordon has many in his ANC zone and in front of peoples\' homes on the public space. None of us are innocent.

It's worth repeating what a DC Court had to say about Jonathan Rees: "Mr. Rees either purposely lied to me or distorted reality, due to a pathologic process, or both. It appears reality is interpreted to meet his own internal needs."

I'm surprised to Rees is denying that the court psychiatrist was writing about him, because elsewhere Rees has asserted that what the psychiatrist was saying was because Rees refused a standard psych evaluation, given to everyone.

Everything that Rees has posted here (and elsewhere for that matter) is a reflection of what that court psychiatrist wrote about him in 1992.

Right.

You said you had three kids, or was it two?

You said you went to Columbia, or was it NYU?

You said you had been married twice, to the former Ms. Cisneros, a relative of the fromer HUD Sec, and then the former Ms. Silverman, you supposed current wife.

Why do you let your supposed cousin Ramon Roy Riverat Stewart post n your behalf? Why have you shared an IP address since at least 2001?

You said you had this extensive professional experience, yet you failed to mention your dismissal from the Kennedy Warren. You still haven't explained the Jonathan Rees & Co which has been in business since 1979, and hasn't appeared in any public statement you have made about your work experience.

It was not until recently that anyone even learned of your divorce, but now you are claiming that was not you, but a different Jonathan R. Rees?

Rees may be right that the race for Ward 3 City Council won't be decided on blogs.

But things like doing newspaper interviews, attending candidate forums, and giving speeches is important, too. Rees has done none of those because he can't. Rees must not risk being subjected to questions from the press or public.

Rees would have to explain all the aliases he's used, for example. Names like "Thelma Roque" (More at http://aliases.wordpress.com/ )

But blogs do serve a purpose. The show how much of a liar Rees is because he simply can't keep his stories straight.

I had a somewhat different view of the debates than those expressed above.

First, the format was horrible. One candidate got to give a 2 minute answer, while everyone else got 30 seconds. For questions dealing with reforming the school system or development, there is no way that 30 seconds is enough to explain your position with any clarity. The moderator should have had the power to vary the format for some of the questions.

Best speech: Paul Strauss' closing - the most passionate speech of the night & on point; he also displayed a sense of humor.

Worst Speech: Sam Brooks' opening - all rhetoric. His closing problems were reflected accurately above.

Individual answers went all over the board: virtually every candidate (except Mr. Goulet) gave a "best" answer to at least one question.

Worst rhetorical device: Bill Rice's use of "birddog" threatens to become his version of the "lockbox".

A special thanks to Mr. Gordon. Some of the questions only had one response, yet virtually everyone except Gordon felt compelled to say something, even if they had nothing else to say. Some of us noticed.

Best overall answers: Eric Gaull; he spoke very well throughout.

Competency: Cheh, Gaull, Gordon, Strauss & Wiss consistently gave competent answers to questions; Rice mostly did except when he got rhetorical; Brooks had the most positions rebutted effectively by others; Goulet is a work in progress.

Biggest disparity in views: development along Wisconsin Avenue: Cheh (smart growth - build em high) v. Wiss (more moderate development like Cityline/Best Buy).

FWIW: Rees worked the residents of Friendship Terrace during their dinnertime. That is where Ms. Cunningham works.

The best part of this is watching Rees have a conversation with Rees.

Who is Thelma Roque? Who is Thelma Cumes?

Where is Mindy Silverman, Rees' so-called campaign manager?

What exactly does IDC, Inc., where Rees is said to work, do? What does Rees do there, exactly?

Who is Margaret Clay, Rees so-called web designer? Nobody can find her.

Why does Rees claim to have 11,000 email addresses of Ward 3 residents? Where did he get all these email addresses?

I do not know either Thelma.

Mindy Silverman is my wife.

Margaret Clay works for VERIZON out in Fairfax.

IDC is a dental organization that specializes in providing dental care to people living in assisted living facilities, nursing homes, prisons and the same under contract. My job there is, I run the whole damn thing. I am the boss over it all and only answer to the Griffiths family of five doctors who own it.

As for those email addresses. Well, two years ago the DC Democratic Party wanted to gather up more current information than the BOEE had and other matters and I was the person who spent the time gathering up that info for the Ward 3 area.

The DC BOEE claims that there are 29,000 registered Democrats but not true. There are only 19,000 but that is because the DC BOEE never takes your name off their records unless you ask them too even if you died or moved away. Their list is about 15 years out of date.

Believe it or not, only about 40% of all qualifying Ward 3 adults are registered to vote.

Democrats have lost about 4,000 members since 2002, Republicans have in this same time gone from 3,200 to 9,000 voters and Independents have grown too.

Amazing. Rees writes, "As for those email addresses. Well, two years ago the DC Democratic Party wanted to gather up more current information than the BOEE had and other matters and I was the person who spent the time gathering up that info for the Ward 3 area."

Did he really STEAL a database of email addresses? Rees is a known liar, but he's admitting that he stole a database of voter email addresses that doesn't belong to him.

How do you equate stealing to what I was doing for the DCDP?

What each of us did was independent work, we we by agreement allowed to kept a copy and that is that as it was all volunteerism.

Rees claims to not know Thelma Roque, but when a Washington Post emailed the afore mentioned "Ms. Roque", Rees was the one to respond to the email. Or was that another Jonathan R. Rees?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020800989.html

Stop the presses!

Tomorrow's headline should be, "Candidate for City Council, Jonathan R. Rees, Admits to Stealing Voter Database."

Quoting Rees, as he explains how he acquired 11,000 voter email addresses: "As for those email addresses. Well, two years ago the DC Democratic Party wanted to gather up more current information than the BOEE had and other matters and I was the person who spent the time gathering up that info for the Ward 3 area."

I think that the people of DC are so turned off by the choices for mayor that this will result in a lower than usual turn out.

There is no crisis. There are no hot button issues. There is no mayoral candidate that excites. Thus, how people feel about the mayoral candidate will dictate the turn out and its impact on the ward races.

Each of the Ward 3 candidates have admitted that it will probably be a very tight race and decided by a handful of votes as each candidate has a base that cannot be shaken and it is to persuade the 1 or 2 thousand who are undecided.

From my positions in Wards 1 & 2, there is plenty of excitement. It comes down to Fenty v Cropp.

My money's on Fenty. I know his family and supporters well. When you get down to it, DC's a small town. People vote for who they trust, and who those people they respect trust. It's a simple equation, really. (A) Do you like predictable old-school (Linda?) or do you (B) hope that DC can move past the Barry years (Fenty?) There is no option C, because no one else is well enough known, let alone admired, city-wide to win. It'll be interesting to watch the after-primary drop-out endorsements.

Mark,

The political pundits say that Fenty has been cuddling up too much to young, white people who normally have a low turn out at the polls, he has offended with his remarks African Americans and the elderly, and most agree that he will probably only win wards 2,3 and 4.

If what the pundits predict comes true, Fenty is dog meat.

Keeping with the thread, I have a feeling that the winner of the ward 3 race will not be who we suspect or think is the most popular. I am expecting an upset.

I think people in ward 3 do not like Gaull or forget his dirty tricks of the past. I think people of ward 3 do not like Rice as they see him as a smart ass who never did squat and is trying to ride the wave of the success of others. I think the people of ward 3 see Strauss as joke and as man out for himself more than us. So I think these three are going into the primaries already with a lot of dislike for them.

If you check the background of Gordon, as an ANC guy, you will see he never got more than 10% of the vote.

I agree with the above poster about Cheh. She has no experience at all and seems to be too wrapped up in her teaching job and other engagements to be a good council member.

That leaves us with Brooks, Goulet, Rees and Wiss. I think it will be one of these four who will pull it off.

Goulet is the son of Jack Evans sort to say and I am sure Jack is probably out there trying to muster up support and votes for him.

Rees steals a database of democratic voter email addresses. That certainly explains things, since there's no other plausible explanation of he got 11,000 email addresses. I bet Rees really regrets letting that slip.

And just as bad (or worse), Rees says that he's actually using this list of 11,000 email addresses -- so he's spamming everyone. That certainly explains this story on DCist about Rees spamming people: http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/02/13/professionalism.php

Um, Kathy Patterson's not running for reelection.

Damn, this man Martin Austermuhle sounds like some really bad news. An agent for a hostile government to the USA, a foreigner who comes here and with other members of the communist party starts a riot and now he is starting trouble here in DC.

I think this guy needs to pack his bags and leave.

I can feel the love here.

Is Martin Austermuhle registered with the US Dept of State? Maybe somebody should call them.

A friend of mine says, that the reason Martin Austermuhle hates Jonathan Rees and has been going after him for about six months and counting is, Rees exposed the facts of Austermuhle and his ties to the communist party, his criminal record in Costa Rica and the USA and forced him to come out of the closet.

These acts made Austermuhle go ballistic, as he did not want anybody in DC knowing about his past. So Austermuhle created most of these lies about Rees and after he did such, he goes to others in the media and fooled them into believing he had proof that Rees was behind things but those others in the media never asked for that proof, as Austermuhle could not possibly have such proof. Yet some believed this lie because of their lack of knowledge of the internet.

This is what a friend tells me.

None of us can deny based upon all we see that Austermuhle is communist, that he has caused trouble in this country, that he does work willingly for an enemy of the USA and that he is not a citizen.

I think 1 + 1 = Austermuhle is not to be believed.

There is something not right about this Austermuhle person as he clearly is not a friend of the USA, his years in the USA have been marred with causing trouble and making a long list of enemies in the process.

What does Austermuhle not understand when we say (Go home commie)!

Whew. I think Rees believes that he'll attract people with sheer volume and frequency, since the substance of his posts is so vacuous and loopy. Good luck with that.

Ah. Parentheses instead of quotation marks. Total Rees-ism, that.

It may not be Rees. Who is this Boyd person as he seems to have it in for Martin Austermuhle?

Here is the source in part of all that is being posted about Martin. It does appear that Martin does have a good number of enemies.

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200504071605

please Rees. Quit it. This compulsive posting is not very becoming. You don't see any other candidates doing it. And there's a reason for it: It's political suicide.

Which, I guess, is good for Ward 3 in the long run. Still, it's bugging the hell out of everyone here in the short run, with the exception of your imaginary friends The Aliases.

Aleksander Boyd is a well-known right-wing activist that you just impersonated.

That's who.

Who cares, Rees? Someone getting arrested on a misdemeanor charge in college?

Whoop de do.

At least he wasn't found incompetent by a court psychiatrist!

It does not matter who is doing the posting but what is being posted, is true about Martin.

Anytime, anything that is said is disagreeable with any of you, Rees gets the blame for it whether he did it or not.

The the other side blames Brooks for it.

Whoa, what a democracy we live in.

DC Wire has become this online, group theraphy room for the weirdos of DC politics.

misdemeanor charge in college now narcotrafficker and killer of women and children.

And this is the best educated city in America? Damn we are in trouble.

Being real about it people, it does appear on its face, that Martin Austermuhle has picked up some serious enemies over the years and apparently for good cause.

This is a perfect example that people who live in glass houses (Austermuhle) should not throw stones.

Here's a thought: Of all the candidates for Ward 3 City Council only Jonathan Rees posts here. Why is that?

First, no other candidate wants to be associated with Rees. So where Rees plays others stay away.

Second, since Rees isn't allowed to participate in candidate forums, because he won't give interviews, and since he doesn't speak to groups, DC Wire is just about the only place he can promote himself. This is it -- DC Wire (and some random posts that appear on the City Paper blog and Craig's List, but which get quickly deleted) is Rees' entire universe.

At least Austermuhle grew up and made something of himself.

Austermuhle has made very little of himself compared to the average person out there. I guess if I was working for someone who uses drug money to export revoluation the I too would have something to show for it other than blood on my hands of the women and children killed.

Your anti-Chavez ranting, like your anti-gay ranting, continues to reveal your true political colors. Stop pretending to be a Democrat. You're obviously a rightwing nutcase.

"Austermuhle has made very little of himself compared to the average person out there. I guess if I was working for someone who uses drug money to export revoluation the I too would have something to show for it other than blood on my hands of the women and children killed."

This is very serious. Jonathan Rees --and make no mistake, Rees posted this-- is using this blog to libel people and the intent of causing them harm. This isn't funny; this isn't a joke. Rees is deliberately and consciously posting messages to damage people.

Criminal and civil charges should be brought against this guy. The only way to stop his libelous disinformation campaign will be a court order banning him from using the internet.

It's unlikely, but devoutly to be wished.

Enough, though. The more you respond to him the more he posts. It's part of his disease. Let's not encourage it.

No, what you've said is completely false. But your illness prevents you from recognizing that.

Sad. I'm not giving you anymore attention though. I can only imagine what kind of monstrous deeds were done to you as a child, resulting in your need for negative attention from strangers. You poor man.

I await the day when an actual judge (rather than you) opines on whether what you've been doing online over the last year has been libel or not. The libeller posting "It's not libel!" is worthless.

No matter how vulgar this attack on Martin is, all that has been said about him is the ugly truth of who Martin really is, what he has done and down the line.

MArtin gets no sympathy from me and is only getting what he deserves as he has been stalking Rees since the beginning of this year and he needs to stay out of our local affairs as a non-US citizen and agent of a communist dictator.

MVD is obviously Rees.

Poor, sick man.

I am not Rees but another reader disgusted with this crap.

I too have had a run in with Martin just as a good dozen or so have here in DC.

Please tell me where in anything Rees has said about Martin, is a lie?

You cannot because Rees is posting truths about Martin that others already posted about him years ago.

I too dislike communists and Rees pissed Martin off long ago by exposing him and that is why they have been popping each other. You are blind if you not seen it.

Now as before, Martin is going to get angry as he always does and either he or his friend Ryan Avent is going to perpetuate this fight by attacking Rees on their blog DCist, as they have done in the past.

Trust me, Martin cannot control himself and he will look for a way to exact revenge.

Rees, your Barry Farms Bro persona is one of the funniest yet.

Thanks!

If by funny, you mean pathetic and sad, yes, I agree.

Not to mention stupid: I mean, does Rees expect anyone --anyone at all-- to believe that "Barry Farms Bro" isn't Jonathan Rees.

The sadly improbable, and yet cruelly amusing, answer is "yes."

Bashing political candidates is a lot of fun, it is a national past time and if you take that sickness away from us, we might die of the boredom and having to get real.

jf is rees.

utter nonsense from the King of Utter Nonsense.

"the paper"? WTF, dude. You're losing it.

Also, it's "hermaphrodite" Rees. Not "hermerphidite."

A number of bloggers, at their own peril, have written about Jonathan Rees. These bloggers should be commended for helping to reveal the truth about Mr. Rees in the face of relentless harassment and cyberstalking. Eventually the mainstream press will do an expose of Rees, but in the meanwhile you can read more about him through the links below. These are just two of several bloggers who know who and what Jonathan Rees really is.

Rees is likely a sociopath: http://tinyurl.com/l82ml

Rees lies and cheats: http://tinyurl.com/gq985

It would seem to me, that if Martin Austermuhle by the public record started up a faction of the communist party on campus, and then goes out of his way to get a job with a communist government, then that makes him a die hard communist no matter how you slice it because, if he was not, then he would have chosen a different and non-political type of employer.

I believe the attack on him is meritorious.

You win, Rees. Everyone's crazy, but you're not. Everyone's wrong, but you're right. Everyone who quotes the legal decisions about you, a Court psychiatrist's evaluation of you, and judge's opinions of you, is lying, and you're the one telling the truth. Everyone who spots your aliases is simply mistaken, and you're right that these dozens of people that nobody has ever met are happily sipping espressos at Starbucks. Everyone who's be harassed and cyberstalked by you is simply making it all up, and you're just a sweet, if misunderstood, guy.

P.S. Go and get a copy of any order you say adjudges Rees as you claim and tell us where we can meet you and read that certified copy of said order.

Joseph Davidson is rees.

Ok, the main thing is, there is no way I would voluntarily want to meet with Rees, his "cousin" Ramon or any of his other psuedonyms in any circumstance or condition.

This is scary and sad.

The original post by Ms. Silverman concerns the forum from Wednesday night. In the course of about 48 hours, there are almost 200 posts, and very few of them discuss the topic. Instead, there are rants and raves about some Austermuhle guy, who I take it is some local writer. What does he have to do with Ward 3?

Why is this person who claims to be a different Jonathan R. Rees from the Ward 3 candidate so fixated on him?

I think the Washington Post needs to examine the proper usage of this onbline forum.

In the meantime, I hope Mr. Rees (the one responsible for this ill behavior) needs to be removed from society. If that is the candidate as well, so be it.

Ramon,

If you look at your posts on the Columbia Heights Yahoo Group (along with Mr. Rees's) from Feb 12-16, 2001 regarding Judge Urbina, along with Mr. Rees alias postings on Yahoo Groups from the Summer of 2005, you will see the plain truth (unless Yahoo is in on the conspiracy in your head) that this is all Rees.

Facts are facts and you are ill.

What facts are those Martin?

"Ramon": You fool. I personally wrote about ten posts here over the weekend. I know who wrote another half-dozen. Neither of us are Martin.

Leave that poor guy alone. He's not a Communist (as if that were a bad thing), he was arrested on an incredibly trivial charge as an undergrad. He works at an embassy and isn't a "merchant of death" (!). Whatever case you've tried to make by quoting the whackjob Aleksander Boyd is specious and transparent. Clearly, you're only trying to smear someone who's valiantly printed the truth about you using his own name.

This is how you regularly treat people who make you uncomfortable and anxious, by challenging your grandiose fantasy version of yourself. Instead of dealing with the truth about yourself, you create an imaginary world of demons and communists and gay radicals and corrupt judges.

It's tragic, and it makes us all very uncomfotable to watch. It's like watching a car accident from a distance. The only difference is you're not only hurting yourself, you're hurting others.

This is not the behavior of a decent person, and certainly not someone worthy of running for office (or his "associate".)

Sociopath:

a complete and utterly unimaginable (for the majority) lack of guilt (Hallahan, 1994). This is the person who can perform the most bloodlessly god-awful and socially abusive criminal acts, and not only express guiltlessness, but ultimately blame the consequences of their act on the injured party!

These people are easily frustrated and prone to impulsive thoughts that they act on, mindlessly uncaring of the consequences of their figurative, or literal, trigger pull (Coleman 1976). These are the people who can put up a good front as they shine the victim on with attractive lies, half truths, and manipulations for their benefit... completely uncaring about the personal cost to the target victim inevitably incurred (Coleman 1976).

Sociopaths share, generally, a complete lack of respect for any authority or mores save their own, and FOR that reason end up, over and over again, in trouble with the law (McConnell, 1980), WHEN they're caught! A sociopath can be a child so viciously, hatefully, and destructively afflicting that she is completely isolated from family, peer, church and school groups (Hallahan, 1994). As all of this dissolution might occur, the sociopath will take no hand in the responsibility for any of it. It's just not their fault, they corrosively and conveniently reason. They are only availing themselves of an opportunity that, "...anyone could (should) take," they reason in interview.

Post, please shut down this blog. It's a waste of everybody's time. Although a good idea in theory, it's obvious that folks in DC cannot handle this. I feel sorry for the folks who actually post some serious/earnest/logical questions here, only to be shut out by this rubbish. So, what was a good idea to start had quickly become a cancer on the city's political discourse. Spare everyone the trouble and pull the plug, along with shutting off future post functions (so the idiots who need to see their writing printed online cannot go back to previous posts and satisfy their cravings there).

Factual sir but what do I care. If you jump in the ring with the devil, then you will get burned.

Politics in its rawest form is dirty. When you chose to jump in the political arena, then expect to get bloodied up.

At 5 PM today, the DC Office of Campaign Finance posted these figures on their website as concerns the ward 3 candidates and campaign contributions to date.

Bill Rice $72K

Eric Gaull $53k

Robert Gordon $46k

Mary Cheh $44k

Sam Brooks $41k

Kathy Wiss $6k

Ms. Conroy $3k

Paul Strauss No Report Filed by 5PM

Bill Rice has gotten the insiders and the big money people to gather up the cash for him in this campaign. What this will translate into is connections, access to Rice once he's in office and more development opportunities for certain people. After working with people for years who want to construct towers, close public libraries and assist friends with past endorsements, these things and others do have benefits!

What Jonathan Rees is doing here is morally, ethically and legally wrong. The Washington Post should not allow him to use its resources to libel and harass and cyberstalk. Please stop him.

It would be nice if Bill Rice had his fundraisers IN WARD 3.

Rees, you dolt. This is a privately owned website. "Free Speech" isn't applicable here.

They'd be doing us all a favor if they banned your deluded,malicious ass.

Please show me where it is written that the Washington Post says that freedom of speech is forbidden on their blog.

Damn you are proof of how stupid people are in DC.

For a paralegal, you really are shamefully ignorant of legal principals.

The right to free speech does not mean that privately-owned media are required to allow unfettered access. Does the First Amendment require this Post to publish every letter to the editor? No. It doesn't. Can you understand the difference between censorship and moderation? No, I don't imagine you can.

Your reputation as the least intelligent candidate is clearly well-deserved.

Re: Rees latest craigslist spam.

Use the link above to flag him, please.

First off dumb ass, I am not Rees but just one of maybe thousands of Washingtonians who is getting tired of your left wingers ruining out city with your crap.

The typical behavior of left-winger losers like you when you are confronted with proof of your stupidity is to demand censorship of all who do not agree with you.

The Washington Post will never censor opinions no matter how much you might not agree.

I have no objection to anything said here, as it does inform us of the good and bad of all who argue their views.

Even if Rees and/or his friends might be highly insulting in their tactics, they have not posted from what I can see anything that is untruthful even if such is upsetting to some.

To My Fellow Non-Rees Blog Readers:

I beg of you. Please do not respond to Rees any longer.

Sure, he'll get temporarily agitated, and post more and more inflammatory stuff for a while. He'll eventually get frustrated by the lack of attention and go bother another blog. That's been his MO on other blogs and yahoogroups. I know it's hard to let his slanderous, offensive and mendacious posts go unchallenged, but it's for the greater good.

Let's make Tuesday the Day No One Responded To Rees.

Bill Rice’s funding is coming mainly from crooked people like Marie Drissel, Max Brown and others who were forced out of DC Government.

Bill Rice would not be a good council member but just another corrupt one at minimum.

DOWN TO THE WIRE IN WARD 3

by: Jonathan R. Rees

The DC City Council race in Ward 3 seems to have candidates with some very serious money to make their battle awesome, but there is something seriously missing, many voters say.

Despite the fact that the some nine odd candidates will spend over $330,000.00 in an effort to be the lucky duck to get the nod, voters want to know where is all that money going because, many still do not know who is running two months prior to the primary, they only see a few political posters on street lights and not a whole lot more.

Ward 5 with about fifteen candidates and far less money to burn shows far greater activity in posters, yard signs and more.

What is the big difference? Simple. The difference is how the money is being spent.

Ward 3 candidates are sinking 80% of their money into expensive parties, office space, equipment, salaried workers and less than those in Ward 5 in actual campaign material to disperse to voters but then again, Ward 5 candidates have what all the Ward 3 candidates don't have and that is, a loyal army of non-paid volunteers to get out among voters.

There are several big mistakes Ward 3 candidates are making but none bigger than sinking money into mailings to voters based upon a voter database from the DC BOEE which is 15 years out of date, and where nobody's name is ever removed unless they ask to be, although they may have been dead the last decade. Add to this, voters upon seeing these campaign flyers in their mail boxes are at an all time record, trashing them without a second look if anybody is paying attention to what is in the trash cans in their mail room, and when you add to this, a 35% return rate on mailings due to DC BOEE not keeping their records updated, candidates are effectively wasting serious money.

Despite all the serious money floating around in the Ward 3 race, the Ward 3 candidates could learn a lot from watching how the Ward 5 candidates are getting far more bang for their bucks.

To be perfectly honest, I am not impressed at all with any of the candidates running for the ward 3 seat.

I feel each of them are either dishonest or dumb.

Is this the best we can do?

To My Fellow Non-Rees Blog Readers:

I beg of you. Please do not respond to Rees any longer.

Sure, he'll get temporarily agitated, and post more and more inflammatory stuff for a while. He'll eventually get frustrated by the lack of attention and go bother another blog. That's been his MO on other blogs and yahoogroups. I know it's hard to let his slanderous, offensive and mendacious posts go unchallenged, but it's for the greater good.

Let's make Tuesday the Day No One Responded To Rees.

To My 5 Fellow Non-Rees Blog Readers,

Glad that Ward 5 finally got a little attention. Our candidates are working hard to impress the Ward 5 voters and are trying diligently to get their messages out. Glad to hear that their money is being put to good use. Now choosing among the many good candidates is a hard decision to make.

(Wow! That worked faster than expected! Keep it up!)

If it wasn't for the zanny antics of Rees and friends, this blog would be boring as heck.

Rees brings up very controversial issues that others won't bring up or address in public. He says things that others are unwilling to voice, but may think of and he is not a die-hard liberal. DC has more conservative/moderate Democrats in this city then people realize.

However, he does get a little way out there sometimes. However, a little controversy here and there is a good thing. It's good to hear all sides.

Remember: It's The Day No One Responded To Rees.

Buy yourself a nice little present to celebrate your good deed. Send yourself a card. Take yourself to lunch. But don't engage the troll.

Remember: It\'s The Day No One Responded To Rees.

Buy yourself a nice little present to celebrate your good deed. Send yourself a card. Take yourself to lunch. But don\'t engage the troll. Better yet, come on over, get on your kneees and celebrate Capital Pride Day on me.

How does Mr. Goulet rectify the hypocracy of being a "smart growth" advocate with his views on the Clark proposal across the street from where he lives? Doesn't this speak to the worst form of NIMBYism?

A "Smart Growth" advocate clearly would support a mid-level or high rise next to an apartment bulding, one door off of Connecticut Avenue, equidistant from both the Cleveland park and Van Ness Metro stops -- even if they lived across the street from it.

No thanks, Mr. Goulet.

- - - - - - -

Thanks to all who participated in The Day No One Responded To Rees.

The improved tenor of Tuesday's comment thread - minus a predictable rash of his weird ranting about Martin late in the day - was well worth the effort required.

Let's do it again real soon!

Spamming messge boards is not a way to endear voters to your candidate.

So can you clarify Eric Goulet's stance on "Smart Growth"?

Let me get this straight, Ward 3 is debating sign placement in public space? Given the critical juncture of our city, that's pathetic. It is a shame to see debate degenerate away from real issues.

The discussion of campaign signs was maybe three minutes of a two-hour forum with the serious candidates for the office.

See the Brooks/Twilight Zone video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e5ELw6eExw

Thats pretty good. 2 minutes of a more substantitive offer than I have seen from the other candidates, followed by the now infamous statement. With 10 candidates in the race, the winner is only going to need 3000 votes.

Thanks for posting it. Are there any more clips from the forum?

I wouldn't mind seeing the specifics on education, DC Voter Rights, Development issues, etc.