.
2022 - Christiana has filed 2 new lawsuits against Targeted Justice - one in Arizona and one in Texas.
Here are 3 certified courtroom documents about Christiana that you can read. These are public records.
The Clerk's certification stamp appears on the last page.
- CHRISTIANA v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, No. G057447
- CHRISTIANA v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, No. G056944.
- The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Thomas CHRISTIANA, Defendant and Appellant., No. E048681.
Here are 3 certified courtroom documents about Christiana that you can read. These are public records.
The Clerk's certification stamp appears on the last page.
- CHRISTIANA v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, No. G057447
- CHRISTIANA v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, No. G056944.
- The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Thomas CHRISTIANA, Defendant and Appellant., No. E048681.
|
|
| ||||||
Targeted Justice won the lawsuit in Arizona in 2020.
1) Attorney for Targeted Justice responds in support of Motion for Summary Judgement.
2) Judge Wismer grants Motion for Summary Judgement. Targeted Justice wins.
|
| ||||
Arizona Judge, Craig Wismer, rules in favor of Targeted Justice.
A LAWSUIT was filed against Targeted Justice by John Thomas Christiana, a former Board member that was voted out. Christiana alleged that TJ committed "crimes" by publishing our information and opinions - and that he was somehow "harmed" as a result. We disagreed. After 24 months, no one at TJ has been charged with any crime. The Supreme Court case "Brandenburg v. Ohio," proves the content of our website is considered "Free Speech." Arizona Judge, Craig Wismer, dismissed the entire case in October 2020. Targeted Justice wins.
https://legaldictionary.net/brandenburg-v-ohio/
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Government cannot punish speech unless it is intended to incite “imminent lawless action,” and is "likely to produce such action."
- Mere advocacy of a future potential crime, is not a crime. It is Free Speech. Hess v. Indiana. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/461/hess-v-indiana
- Additionally: Re-Posting publicly available information and home addresses is not a "crime." zabasearch.com & veripages.com have been on the internet for 10+ years, posting home addresses. They have never been charged with a crime, because it is public information. Voter registration & County property records are also public information with home addresses.
- June 2018, NYU Professor, Sam Lavigne posts 1500 names/details of govt ICE employees on Github. No criminal charges filed, because it is Public Information.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Lavigne
- Since 2018, Wikileaks has posted the ICE Patrol, including names, locations, resumes, etc. of 9200 govt ICE employees. No criminal charges, because it is public information. https://ice.wikileaks.org/ (If the webpage is blocked - see it here - https://www.targetedjustice.com/wikileaks-info.html
- In spite of ridiculous disinformation being spread by one source, Barrett Brown was never convicted of "doxxing." Posting public information records is never a crime. It is Free Speech. "In March 2014, most charges against Brown were dropped.[58] In April 2014, it was reported that Brown had agreed to a plea bargain.[59]" -- wikipedia.org
- The legal definition of a "True Threat" is specified under the Supreme Court case Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. (2015). It requires proof of the intent to threaten someone. Identifying government officials involved in criminal conduct, has never constituted a threat. Just watch "Saturday Night Live" - they do it every week. Also see the Rule of Lenity, or the Rule of Strict Construction, which requires the court to interpret in favor of the Defendant.
Here is what our Attorney said about Christiana's claims:
In a Motion for Summary Judgement (MSJ).
This is a public record.
From the record:
"...summary judgement should be entered in favor of the Defendants (Targeted Justice) dismissing with prejudice the causes of action asserted in Plaintiff's (Christiana) FAC (First Amended Complaint) because the undisputed facts in this case establish Plaintiff's causes of action fail as a matter of law."
"At no time has Targeted Justice been contacted by the FBI or any other law enforcement agency..."
"As demonstrated in this Motion, Plaintiff (Christiana) initiated this lawsuit without reasonable cause, and his causes of action were not well grounded in fact and existing law. Plaintiff's entire lawsuit is premised on his allegations..."
"Plaintiff (Christiana) asserts a Wrongful Termination claim despite knowing he was never employed by Targeted Justice. Plaintiff alleges he has incurred emotional distress, despite the fact it is undisputed he was not the target of alleged crimes and was not present when the alleged crimes occurred. Plaintiff asserts claims for Negligence and Defamation without providing cursory details supporting these claims, such as specifying the alleged negligent conduct and the defamatory statements made against him."
"Defendants (Targeted Justice) should be Awarded their Attorney's Fees."
https://www.targetedjustice.com/christiana-vs-targ-justice.html
Public information about Christiana:
https://www.sierrawave.net/christiana-entered-plea-to-arson-faces-sentencing/
Christiana entered plea to arson, faces sentencing.
"...The last two years involved reports of Christiana vandalizing cars in the Big Pine Creek area, including broken windows and a cut brake line and gas lines. Officers accused him of breaking into a DWP cabin above the trailhead. Officers said they found Christiana with jewelry and firearms taken from that cabin. Officers also reported that they found containers of gasoline in Christiana’s car. He was finally charged with arson. Issues of competency to stand trial came up during the course of court hearings."
Targeted Justice answers the Complaint. (summary)
This is a Public Record. 9/21/2020
AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
108. Plaintiff (Christiana)’s Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
109. All of the alleged statements in issue and made by Calvert are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
110. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his alleged damages.
111. Plaintiff’s claims against Calvert are barred because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Calvert.
112. To the extent Calvert’s alleged actions occurred while a member of Targeted Justice’s Board of Directors, Plaintiff’s claims against Calvert are barred because all such allegations occurred under the corporate umbrella of Targeted Justice.
113. Plaintiff's claims against Doris Clause are barred because all such allegations occurred under the corporate umbrella of Targeted Justice.
114. Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law, because Defendants did not cause him to incur damages.
115. Plaintiff’s derivative claims fail as a matter of law, because Targeted Justice has not incurred damages.
116. Plaintiff’s negligence claim fails as a matter of law, because Defendants did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care.
117. Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional duress claim fails as a matter of law, because the alleged extreme and outrageous conduct was not directed against Plaintiff.
118. Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful termination fails as a matter of law, because Plaintiff was never an employee of Targeted Justice.
119. Defendants incorporate into their Answer by reference all other affirmative defenses set forth in Rules 8(d) and 12(b) of the Ariz. R. Civ. P.
120. Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer to assert affirmative defenses that are revealed during the course of discovery and/or further investigation of this matter.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request the following relief:
A. That Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and that all requested relief be denied with prejudice;
B. That Defendants be awarded their costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341, 12-341.01, 12-349 and/or any applicable contract; and
C. For such other relief that the Court deems just and proper in this case.
DATED this 21st day of September, 2020.
UPDATE 6 October 2020: Arizona Judge Craig Wismer grants a Motion for dismissal of the entire case, because the claims of Christiana have no merit. Targeted Justice wins.
Targeted Individuals
individuos apuntados
Individuo dirigido
Personne ciblée
Individu ciblé
فرد مستهدف
目标个人
目標個人
लक्षित व्यक्ति
Individu yang Disasarkan
Целевая личность
লক্ষ্যযুক্ত ব্যক্তি
Indivíduo segmentado
対象者
Zielgruppe
Diangkah Individu
대상 개인
Hedeflenen Birey
Cá nhân được nhắm mục tiêu
లక్ష్యంగా ఉన్న వ్యక్తి
लक्ष्यित वैयक्तिक
இலக்கு தனிநபர்
Individuo mirato
نشانہ انفرادی۔
લક્ષ્યાંકિત વ્યક્તિગત
Ukierunkowana osoba
Цільова особа
فردی هدفمند
ടാർഗെറ്റുചെയ്ത വ്യക്തിഗത
ಉದ್ದೇಶಿತ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ
ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨਾ ਵਿਅਕਤੀਗਤ
ඉලක්කගත තනි පුද්ගලයෙකි
Individual vizat
Məqsədli Fərdi