Open Letter to KBTV Anchor Mike McNeill

Hi, Mike;

Concerning your interview with Philip Klein on June 30, 2010, I have some comments. I haven't missed the irony that I'm responding to KBTV Channel 4 over the Independence Day holiday on topics of constitutional timbre.

While most of your interview has to do with Klein's purported postings on the Beaumont Underground blog, Philip's legal action against Sam the Eagle and me were discussed in this interview. Though referencing the anonymous author of Beaumont Underground, you actively solicited opposing opinions.

I hope you'll consider my arguments, even though your opinion of anonymous authors is clear:

Mike: Now I'm not a big fan of anonymous blogs, I'm not, I think that there is absolutely positively nothing more powerful than the written word, okay, 'cause it's there to stay, and if you're gonna write something I think you should put your name on it. Bottom line.

Historically, anonymous authors have lampooned officious and obnoxious, public and political personalities, bullies, and tyrants. This is protected speech under the First Amendment and as you noted, the written word is indeed quite powerful, hence my response.

For precedent, see my original Motion to Quash at this link on the Southeast Texas Political Review. While Philip has posted only a few documents in this case, a comprehensive record of court documents can be found on Operation Kleinwatch at operationkleinwatch.blogspot.com.

Philip disagrees and has filed a pre-discovery motion for a deposition of Google to reveal the identities of Sam the Eagle and me. Technically this is not a lawsuit, but a petition of the court. There are greater issues over which to disagree, however.

In the first two minutes of this segment, you offered a succinct and accurate summary of the circumstances surrounding Philip's alleged postings on the Beaumont Underground blog. You asked Klein to respond:

Klein: My response is, uuhhh, there is a thing called spoofing, you ever heard about it?

Mike: I know it - I use to work in IT, so I know what spoofing is, but no one else...

Klein: So you know what spoofing is?

Mike: Most people don't, explain...

Klein: 'Splain spoofing to you is, uh, you can go to certain websites on the internet, and you can put in a IP address and you can make it look like it's coming from somebody else.

Michael: Okay.

Not okay - there are no web sites on the internet that actively spoof IP addresses. Philip R. Klein and Fox 4 can prove I'm wrong by simply providing the link to one site that operates in the manner that Philip describes.  

In lay terms, the problem with IP spoofing is this: a network breaks up big chunks of information into little packets to send from one point to another. A message like Philip's alleged comments will generate numerous packets. After each packet is received at the destination, an acknowledgment is sent back to the spoofed IP address. The real server where the traffic originated never receives the acknowledgment from the first package and communication stops. Other filters in the upper protocols also reject IP spoofing. See for yourself, this is very difficult.

Note that modern mail servers are also configured to reject spoofed IP addresses, but not spoofed email addresses. There are many types of spoofing and Klein exploits this confusion throughout your interview.
 
Continuing with the interview (emphasis is mine):

Klein: Uuuhhh, about a year ago and I think uuhhh when you, uuuuhhhhh, asked me this two weeks ago before I left to go out of the country, uuhh, I provided you with an affidavit that was filed with the United States Government.

Michael: You did, yes.

I hope this was a different affidavit than the one Klein posted on the SET Political Review, which was clearly styled in Jefferson County:

For the sake of KBTV's credibility, I hope you didn't fall for this:

A self-addressed US Postal Service return receipt that was never mailed does not constitute filing a sworn affidavit with the "United States Government."

This document was written in Word, printed, decorated and prominently signed, and then copied in Philip's office without a valid jurat from a notary. As such, this is merely Philip's dubious statement with no substantiating evidence whatsoever. On the Rather Scale, Klein's "affidavit" ranks about five in my opinion.

Klein: In that affidavit, we explained what was going on and what we were doing, which was, we were doing a thing called reverse spoofing.

Klein's statement obfuscates the issue, since reverse spoofing refers to an obsolete routine to gain information and has nothing whatsoever to do with IP address spoofing. From the Federal Information Processing Standards Publications 112, dated 1985:

Reverse spoofing occurs when a user is fooled into believing that communication is with the intended computer when another computer is there. In the latter case, an authorized user can be spoofed into providing the valid user's password by simulating the "LOGON" request of the intended computer. After the password is obtained, the intruder that is controlling the spoofing computer informs the user that the requested service is temporarily unavailable. During this exchange the intruder has obtained a valid password without the user's knowledge.

Continuing with the interview:

Klein: We were making posts on the internet, on certain websites, with an IP address that was not really our IP address. It's called a false IP address. The reason for this is there is a lawsuit that I have filed, you're aware of, that uuhh, against, uuuhhh uhh, Google, Google Corporation, aahhmm, and certain bloggers.

Mike: And you sued Google because they host the blog.

Klein: They host the blog...

Mike: Blogspot, okay.

Klein: It's called a 202 lawsuit, it's an informational lawsuit, 202 [stutter] lawsuit is simply this, we want to know who those people are. [Pitch rises] okay? It's that simple.

[Philip takes a long breath]

Klein: About five yea...

Mike: What gives you the right to know who they are.

Philip: What gives m...well...well, let's get through this because I don't think it's, uh, you-you-you-you made your presentation, let me make mine.

Mike: Fair enough.

Not fair. Philip dodged this question, even though he opened the door by invoking this lawsuit during a response about his alleged posts on Beaumont Underground. 

Had he answered your question, he would have repeated those same tired and groundless accusations concerning Philip's pesonal relationship with farm animals, attacks on his family, and copyright infringement. Note that Klein has never offered any evidence whatsoever in this 202 "informational lawsuit" to support any of these accusations, even though claims of defamation must be set forth verbatim.

None of this is relevant to the Beaumont Underground blog, even though Philip frequently claims he's the victim of a conspiracy to talk trash about him on the internet. The number of conspirators is fluid, and apparently involves anyone who's ever expressed a negative opinion about Philip Klein.

Klein: In that 202 lawsuit five years ago, there was a site that was put up on internet, that was copying things that we were saying on the Southeast Texas Political Review, and in coordination with Time Warner security, we hired a security company out of Houston, and we came up with an IP address that would look like it was coming from us. Because we knew that people were posting through these IP addresses and using our IP address. We have a secret IP address, I know that sounds kind of spooky, but we do, it's 191, is the beginning. Okay?

Mike: Right.

Klein: That's what our true IP address is.

Klein is blatantly lying, since this website from five years ago is not mentioned in the current "202 lawsuit." See for yourself. The only blogs or websites referenced in this petition are OperationKleinwatch,blogspot.com, SamtheEagleUSA,blogspot.com, and NotThisOneTooJaques,blogspot.com.

To recap, Philip claims that Time/Warner and a Houston security firm set up a server to spoof his own IP address, except it's not his IP address, because he really has a secret IP address. All authentic outgoing traffic from Philip has his spoofed address, even though it originates from his secret IP address.

This is gibberish. 

Klein: We knew people were using the spoof method to put post up not only on,  what you call it, Beaumont Underground...

Mike: uhh, huh

Klein: ...but on four other sites that we could find. Really vile stuff.

Mike: Claiming to be you.

Klein: Claiming to be me, putting it up. What we were doing is, when I was posting, and when I would answer anything, I would use that spoof IP address, to keep the....beat.....going...so we could do with our...company in Houston, I'm being very...specific about this, because it's legal, because it will show up in court, when we eventually, this interview we're doing right now will show up in court.

To recap, Philip claims that with the "spoof method," he used his spoof IP address, which protected his secret IP address, to post comments that look like they came from his spoofed IP address. Philip is being very specific because this interview will show up in court, all said with a straight face. 

Reiterating, this is gibberish.

Klein: We were keeping the spoof going, we wanted the spoofer to continue to think we were operating off that IP address. What you didn't know, what you don't know, and what a lot of other people out there don't know, is that we were having quiet communications in the background through letters and phone calls with the people that these things were being said about, meaning the person...the individual at the other station, we have had communication by letter, we have had communication by phone, we've had communication with these people telling them, look this is what's going on, just giving the FYI, just giving you the heads up, this is what's going on...

Mike: letting them know it's not you...

Klein: letting them know it's not me, Clearly, they knew all the way back to January and December of last year, before we filed the affidavit with the federal government, which you have a copy of, clearly you can see we filed it, clearly you can see our outline of the history of this, so what I guess I'm trying to say is, Here I am , Philip Klein, with a bad spelling,  uuuh, low tech website that is continually...is attacked for having an opinion that is opposite of, the, the, the, non-conservative philosophy, let's just say the liberal philosophy, I believe in smaller government, I believe in smaller uuuhhhh taxes, I believe in more of our personal responsibility, and for that...

Mike: You have 30 seconds...

Klein: Awright, for that I'm attacked. So, I think that really, the bottom line here is that what you see is not really what it is, let this thing play out and when it gets out in court, I think it's gonna be a story you'll probably want to tell.

Philip never contacted "the individual at the other station" by letter, by phone call, or any other means, to reveal that someone was allegedly posting crude and obscene comments using his IP address. Confirm for yourself.

None of this is clear as Klein claims. As I've shown, he's presented a document of dubious origin and obfuscated the real history of events specific to Klein v. Google and Beaumont Underground with bizarre claims of secret IP addresses, conspiracies, and imagined or real lawsuits.

Neither is Philip continually attacked "for having an opinion that is opposite of the non-conservative philosophy." Instead, he is criticized and ridiculed for his simplistic and vapid opinions, half-truths, blatant lies, hypocritical positions, defamatory personal attacks, and often oblique personal agendas.

As examples, a recent article on Operation Kleinwatch detailed several incidents of online harassment by Philip. Details of Philip's litigious nature are certainly relevant, and I have a growing list of approximately 30 lawsuits on my blog that involve Philip R. Klein or his two corporations, Klein Investments and PRK Enterprises, as either plaintiff or defendant. While Klein has referenced this list as evidence of defamation, he has never identified which lawsuits are spurious. I've included the cause numbers, so please confirm for yourself.

In my opinion, it's unethical to give Klein a free venue to disseminate this misinformation, but not challenge at least some of his blatant lies. You've expressed a desire to publish both sides of the issue, so please accept this argument as a valid response. I've cross-posted this open letter on my blog to confirm that this message is really from Gus Pillsbury, AKA John Doe 1.

Sincerely,

Gus Pillsbury