Open Letter to David Yates/SE Texas Record

Dear David;

I've been reading your articles on the Klein v. Google case. I thought you did a good job on this article. Thanks for the fair coverage! 

After reading your latest article, however, I felt compelled to respond. I noticed some inaccuracies.  For instance, the case citation is incomplete:

Appeals case Nos. 09-10-00189-CV and 09-10-00051-CV
Jefferson County District Court case No. E184-784

You omitted this one:

Texas Supreme Court No. 10-0366

In the article itself, you wrote:

At the request of the two bloggers, justices on May 20 dismissed a second appeal filed by Sam the Eagle Web blog and Operation Kleinwatch Web blog.

Actually, this was the original appeal, for which we filed a motion to dismiss when we presented our Writ of Mandamus. We changed our appeal to a Mandamus after we did not receive a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on why our original motion, filed pro se, was denied. All of this is clearly documented in the court filings.

As such, there has been only one Appeal, now dismissed, and one Mandamus, which is now under review by the Texas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set a calendar date of today for a response from Klein's attorney, John Morgan, Esq. Morgan's response was filed on time.

You also wrote:

Both Sam the Eagle and Kleinwatch are pseudonyms adopted by the two appellants whose real identities will most likely be revealed soon, thanks to a lower court's order forcing Google to give up their names.

Attached, see Google's Response to our Writ of Mandamus and Motion for Emergency Stay; specifically, the Rule 11 agreement between Google and Klein which clearly states that until these issues are resolved, Google's production of any information is suspended indefinitely. 

I also wonder why you've liberally quoted Klein's filings, but never referenced any of our filings. As another example, you wrote:

In a motion to dismiss filed in response to the bloggers' most recent appeal, Klein says the "bloggers and Google are doing everything they can to drag their feet to protect (their) identities and to continue with the defamation campaign."

A cursory examination of the filing dates reveals that Klein waited approximately three months before responding to our original motion to quash his Rule 202 petition.  His latest response on our Writ and Motion before the Texas Supreme Court was faxed to our attorney less than two hours before the deadline this afternoon, yet we've always responded in a timely manner.

Many wild accusations and inaccurate statements have been made to bolster a weak nuisance suit specifically aimed at silencing Philip's critics. If for some reason you don't have access to the filings in this case, please contact our attorney, Jeffrey L. Dorrell. He can answer your questions for proper perspective and a more balanced story. 

Please note that I've also published this open letter on my blog at OperationKleinwatch.blogspot.com, so you'll know that this is an authentic response to your article.

I welcome your response!

Sincerely,
Gus Pillsbury (AKA John Doe 1)
OperationKleinwatch.blogspot.com